2 Apologies
An apology from Member IM Fordham has 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.
The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code)
requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere
to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The
policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:
i)
A financial conflict of interest, which
is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to
an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and
ii)
A non-financial conflict interest, which
does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for
example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit
organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.
The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help
elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s
Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more
detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around
when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.
Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected
Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for
inspection by members upon request.
Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed
to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.
.
4 Suspension of Standing
Orders
In order to
facilitate the ability of the hearing panel to hear and consider submissions
from members of the public on the Great Barrier Local Board Proposed Changes to
Local Dog Access Rules, it is recommended that the following standing orders
are temporarily suspended:
i.
Standing Order 3.3.7 – Duration of meetings and
time limits;
ii.
Standing Order 3.7.5 – major items not on the
agenda;
iii.
Standing Order 3.7.6 – Minor items not on the
agenda;
iv.
Standing Orders 3.20.1 – 3.20.8 – Deputations
and Presentations;
v.
Standing Orders 3.21.1 – 3.21.4 – Petitions; and
vi.
Standing Order 3.23 – Requests for reports
This will allow members of the public to address the panel when
considering item 10 on the agenda.
|
That the Great Barrier Local Board:
a)
temporarily suspend the following Standing
Orders for the duration of this meeting in accordance with Standing Order
3.2.1 in order to facilitate the ability of the hearing panel to hear and
consider submissions from members of the public on the Great Barrier Local
Board Proposed Changes to Local Dog Access Rules:
i.
3.3.7 – Duration of meetings and time limits
ii.
3.7.5 – major items not on the agenda
iii.
3.7.6 – Minor items not on the agenda
iv.
3.20.1 – 3.20.8 – Deputations and
Presentations
v.
3.21.1 – 3.21.4 – Petitions
vi.
3.23 – Requests for reports
b)
note that for the avoidance of doubt,
submitters to the Great Barrier Local Board Proposed Changes to Local Dog
Access Rules will be allowed to address the panel when considering item 10 on
the agenda.
|
5 Petitions
See item 4 –Suspension of Standing Orders
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been
received.
6 Deputations
See item 4 –Suspension of Standing Orders
Standing
Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are
required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications
are approved by the Chairperson of the Great Barrier Local Board. This means
that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda.
Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the
meeting.
At the close
of the agenda no requests for deputations had been received.
7 Public Forum
See item 4 –Suspension of Standing Orders
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.
8 Extraordinary
Business
See item 4 –Suspension of Standing Orders
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.”
9 Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had
been received.
|
Great Barrier
Local Board Proposed Changes to Local Dog Access Rules
15 August 2016
|
|
Hearing and
deliberation report on proposed changes to local dog access rules in the Great
Barrier Local Board area
File No.: CP2016/16971
Purpose
1. To support the
Great Barrier Local Board Dog Access Hearing Panel with the hearing and
deliberation of submissions to proposed changes to local dog access rules in
the Great Barrier Local Board area.
Executive
summary
2. The Great
Barrier Local Board Dog Access Hearing Panel (‘the Panel’) has been appointed
to hear, deliberate and make decisions on submissions to proposed changes to
local dog access rules in the Great Barrier Local Board area (resolution GBI/2016/63).
3. The proposed
changes were adopted by the Great Barrier Local Board at its business meeting
on the 11 May 2016 (resolution GBI/2016/63). The proposed changes were publicly notified for submissions on 10
June 2016. The submission period closed six weeks later on 17 July 2016. A
total of 89 submissions were received and 20 submitters indicated that they
wished to be heard.
4. Key concerns raised
in the submissions for the Panel to address relate to proposed changes at
Medlands Beach and Gooseberry Flat Beach.
5. The hearing and
deliberation process requires the Panel to conduct public meetings to:
· hear from the 20 submitters who wish to speak to their submission
· deliberate all matters raised in written and oral submissions
· make decisions on changes to local dog access rules (including a
commencement date) by adopting a decision report containing amendments to the
Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012
· request the governing body at its 29 September 2016 meeting to
implement the decisions by amending the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw
2012.
6. This report provides a summary of the submissions received and other
relevant information to assist the Panel with the hearing and deliberation
process.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Great Barrier
Local Board Dog Access 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 – Great Barrier Local
Board May 2016’
i) receive the
submissions in Attachment C
ii) hear the
submitters who wish to be heard in support of their submission.
|
Proposed Changes to Local Dog Access Rules
7. In 2012, local
boards were delegated responsibility to review dog access rules for local
parks, beaches and foreshore areas (resolution GB/2012/157).
8. The process to
review dog access rules requires the use of a special consultative procedure
under the Local Government Act 2002. This process requires the adoption of
proposed changes to dog access rules (‘proposed changes’), public notification
of the proposed changes for submissions, and the public hearing, deliberation
and making decisions on the proposed changes having regard to the matters
raised in submissions.
9. At its business
meeting on 13 November 2015, the Great Barrier Local Board resolved to
undertake a review of its local dog access rules in 2016 (resolution
GBI/2015/162).
10. Following a pre-consultation
period to gather information and community views, the Great Barrier Local Board
adopted proposed changes on the 11 May 2016 for public consultation (resolution
GBI/2016/63).
11. The Great Barrier
Local Board Dog Access Hearing Panel (‘the Panel’) was appointed to hear,
deliberate and make decisions on submissions to the proposed changes
(resolution GBI/2016/63).
12. A full copy of
the proposed changes (including maps) is contained in Attachment A – the
Statement of Proposal. The proposed changes include to:
· better align local dog access rules with the Department of
Conservation rules on Awana, Medlands and Okupu Beaches to protect wildlife
· better protect public safety and comfort and wildlife by redefining
and reducing existing dog friendly (under control off a leash) areas at
Mulberry Grove Beach and Gooseberry Flat Beach
· reclassify some dog exercise areas as dog friendly (under control
off a leash) areas
· replace specific amenity-based rules with place specific
location-based rules.
Public Notification for Submissions
13. The proposed
changes were publicly notified for submissions on 10 June 2016. The submission
period closed six weeks later on 17 July 2016. The proposed changes were
notified through:
· notices to all registered dog owners with their dog registration
reminder letters
· a public notice in the New Zealand Herald on 10 June 2016
· a public notice in the July edition of Our Auckland
· a notice on the Auckland Council website
· a notice in the June People’s Panel e-update
· updates to local board registered stakeholders
· notices to previous submitters on the 2012 dog access review,
residing in the Great Barrier Local Board area
· advertorial in the Barrier Bulletin on 16 June 2016.
14. All relevant
documents including submission forms were made available on the council’s
website and through local libraries and service centres.
Hearing and deliberations process
15. The process to
consider and make decisions on changes to local dog access rules is summarised
as follows:
· receive the submissions, including any late submissions
· public hearing of any submitter who wishes to speak in support of
their submission
· public deliberation on the matters raised in written and oral
submissions
· make decisions on changes to local dog access rules (including a
commencement date) by adopting a decision report containing amendments to the
Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012
· request the governing body at its 29 September 2016 meeting to
implement the decisions by amending the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw
2012.
16. The statutory,
policy and delegated requirements that the Panel needs to consider in hearing,
deliberating and making decisions are detailed in Attachment A (page 49) and
includes:
· public safety and comfort, the protection of wildlife, and the
recreational needs of dogs and their owners
· the region-wide standard for summer time and season rule on beaches
(if a time and season rule is proposed)
· dog access rules need to be easy to understand (i.e. practical,
enforceable and clear)
· the views and evidence raised by submitters
· the information used to develop the proposed changes (refer
Attachment A).
17. A deliberations
worksheet is provided as Attachment B to assist the Panel in its deliberations.
Summary of Submissions
18. A total of 89
submissions were received with 232 submission points. Of these, 43 submissions
are from the residents of Great Barrier Local Board area. Table 1 below
summarises the submitter groups.
Table 1 Submitter groups to Great Barrier local dog access review
|
Submitter group
|
Number of submissions
|
Percentage of submissions
|
|
Dog
owners
|
70
|
79%
|
|
Non
dog owners
|
19
|
21%
|
|
Local
residents
|
43
|
48%
|
|
Non-local
residents
|
46
|
52%
|
|
Local
dog owners
|
37
|
42%
|
|
Local
non-dog owners
|
6
|
7%
|
19. The submission points are summarised into
topics aligned with the proposed changes. Issues raised outside the scope of
the proposed changes are summarised in submission topic 7. For each topic, staff comments and other
relevant information is provided where appropriate.
20. A full copy of
the submissions is provided in Attachment C.
Submission topic 1 – General commentary
21. A number of
general submission points were received in relation to the proposal that the
Panel can consider under any of the subsequent submission topics.
22. A total of 25
submission points were received in relation to the overall proposal. Of these;
two support and 23 oppose the proposal in its entirety. Reasons for opposition
include; that Great Barrier Island is quiet, the changes were unfair to dog
owners, and that dogs needed adequate exercise.
23. A total of 23
submission points were received in generally about dog access. Of these:
· 11 sought more dog access generally. Reasons include; that dogs need
adequate exercise, the proposed rules being unfair to dog owners, and
supporting responsible dog owners.
· 12 related to beaches. Of these:
o two did not support the proposal
o four wanted less restrictive rules or for all beaches to be dog
friendly (under control off a leash) areas
o four wanted beaches to be standard (under control on a leash) areas
for both public safety and comfort and dog access
o one from a non-dog owner resident who wanted all beaches to be high
use (time and season) areas
o one wanted all beaches to be highly sensitive (prohibited) areas for
the protection of wildlife and for public safety and comfort.
Submission topic 2 – Highly sensitive areas
24. Highly sensitive
areas were identified as places where the mere presence of a dog can have a negative
effect, for instance on bio-diversity.
25. It is noted that
all submission points on Awana and Medlands Beaches are summarised under this
topic. This is because the proposal identified parts of these beaches as highly
sensitive, dog friendly and standard areas, and submissions on these beaches
typically refer to all three of these areas.
26. The proposal
identified four highly sensitive (dogs prohibited) areas on parts of Awana and
Medlands Beaches and the whole of Okupu Beach. Other parts of Awana and
Medlands Beaches are proposed to retain under control on a leash and under
control off a leash access.
27. The Department of
Conservation administer other areas of land and foreshore at all three beaches
on which dogs are prohibited.
28. The proposed
changes are intended to better align local dog access rules with Department of
Conservation to better protect wildlife.
29. The current rules
in these areas allow dogs under control on a leash on Awana Beach, under
control on a leash and off a leash in different parts of Medlands Beach, and
under control off a leash on Okupu Beach.
30. Maps of the
proposal and current rules are shown from page 63 in Attachment A.
31. A total of ten
general submission points were received about highly sensitive areas. Of these:
· six supports the proposed prohibition of dogs from highly sensitive
areas
· two supports a prohibition of dogs only during the breeding season
· two wanted dogs allowed under control on a leash in highly sensitive
areas.
32. A total of four
submission points were received about Awana Beach. Of these:
· two were from dog owners and two were from non-dog owners
· one supported the proposal to protect wildlife
· one wanted dogs prohibited only during breeding season to protect
wildlife
· two opposed the proposal. Reasons included unfair to dog owners,
dogs need adequate exercise, and owners are generally able to control their
dogs.
33. A total of 18
submission points were received about Medlands Beach. Of these:
· 14 were from dog owners and four were from non-dog owners
· three supported the identification of the beach as a highly
sensitive area either year round or during the breeding season
· 15 submission points wanted less restrictive rules, including
allowing dogs under control on a leash. Reasons included unfair to dog owners
or too restrictive, dogs help with owners’ health and fitness, and owners are
generally able to control their dog.
34. A total of five
submission points were received about Okupu Beach. Of these:
· two were from dog owners and one was from a non-dog owner
· one supported the proposal to protect
wildlife
· two wanted dogs allowed under control off a
leash in the area near the boat ramp. Reasons included support for responsible
dog owners and insufficient evidence.
Staff
comments
35. No staff
comments.
Submission topic 3 – High use areas
36. A high use area
is a place that attracts a lot of people at certain times of the day or year.
At those times when there are a lot of people without dogs, the presence of
dogs can affect public safety and comfort and it is appropriate that dogs be
prohibited or under control on a leash. At low use times, it may be appropriate
that dogs be allowed under control on or off a leash access to meet the
recreational needs of dogs and their owners.
37. The proposal did
not identify any high use areas, but did propose a time and season rule should
any high use areas be identified through public consultation (table 4, page 23 in
Attachment A).
38. Currently there
is no time and season rule on Great Barrier Island.
39. Submission points
that want proposed highly sensitive, dog friendly and standard areas to be high
use areas are addressed in submission topics 2 and 4.
40. The Panel only
need to consider the following submission points about the proposed time and
season rule if it determines that a specific location should be identified as a
high use area.
41. A total of 51
submission points were received on the time and season rule. Of these:
· 26 were from local residents and 25 from non-resident submitters
· resident dog owners did not consider that a time and season was
required and preferred under control off a leash at all times
· resident non-dog owners did not consider that a time and season was
required to protect the amenity of other users but could be used to protect
wildlife in high sensitivity areas
· resident non-dog owners who stated a preference for the start and
finish of the summer season (four) predominantly sought controls around the
breeding season with prohibitions on dogs throughout the day.
Staff
comments
42. No staff
comments.
Submission topic 4 – Dog friendly areas
43. A dog friendly
area is a place that is suitable for dogs to run and play off a leash. These
places may have lower levels of public use by non-dog owners, or be of a size
that allows for shared use without significant impact on other users of the
place.
44. The proposal is
to reduce the areas identified as dog friendly at Gooseberry Flat, Mulberry
Grove and Medlands Beaches, and to retain the current dog friendly areas at
Awana Beach and Okiwi Airfield.
45. Currently there
are six dog friendly areas on Great Barrier Island; Gooseberry Flat, Mulberry
Grove, the Middle portion of Medlands Beach, on Awana Beach south of the
council access, Okupu Beach above mean high water springs, and on the northern
side of Okiwi
Airfield. In addition, all coastal water within the jurisdiction of the council
not identified as a highly sensitive area or a significant ecological area, is
a dog friendly area.
46. One general submission
point was received in support of under control off a leash in dog friendly
areas.
47. The remaining
submission points related to specific locations.
48. Submission points
about Awana, Medlands and Okupu Beaches are discussed in submission topic 2.
49. A total of 15
submission points were received about Gooseberry Flat Beach. Of these:
· two supported the proposal. Reasons included the protection of
wildlife
· three opposed the proposal. Reasons included that the area is busy,
used by families, and that the proposal was unfair for dog owners
· one wanted the area identified as a standard area
· one wanted the area identified as a high use area because the area
is busy and used by families
· eight wanted the area identified as either dog friendly or to have
less restrictive rules. Reasons included; that dogs need adequate exercise
opportunities, the rules are unfair to dog owners, the evidence does not
support the restriction of dogs, and the need to support responsible dog
owners.
50. A total of six
submission points were received about Mulberry Grove Beach. Of these:
· one supported the proposal in general
· four opposed the proposal. Reasons included; that the proposal was
unfair to dog owners, dogs need adequate exercise, and to support responsible
dog owners
· one considered that the wrong portion of the beach had been
designated as a dog friendly area.
Staff
comments
51. No staff
comments.
Submission topic 5 – Standard area
52. A standard area
is a place that does not fall into any of the other three categories. These
places may include:
· moderate or low use places that are not suitable for dogs to run and
play off a leash
· high use areas where the proposed time and season rule would be less
appropriate (in terms of balancing the need to ensure public safety and comfort
and the needs of dogs and their owners)
· areas that allow for dogs to be included within family activities
without interfering with other users.
53. The proposal is
to identify all areas not included as a highly sensitive, high use or dog
friendly as a standard area where dogs are allowed under control on a leash.
This includes additional areas at Gooseberry Flat and Mulberry Grove Beaches.
54. The current rule
is the same as the proposal, except for the additional areas at Gooseberry Flat
and Mulberry Grove Beaches which are currently dog friendly areas.
55. A total of six
general submission points were received on this topic. Of these:
· five support the proposal to provide for public safety and comfort,
the needs of dog owners, and the protection of wildlife
· one wanted dogs allowed under control off a leash in these areas.
56. A total of 22
submission points were received on specific locations on this topic. Of these:
· the 21 submission points about Gooseberry Flat and Mulberry Grove
Beaches are discussed in submission topic 4.
· one wanted Blind Bay identified as a dog friendly area stating that
dogs need adequate exercise opportunities, the beach is primarily used for dog
walking and dog owners generally are able to keep control of their
dogs.
Staff
comments
57. No staff
comments.
Submission topic 6 – Ambiguous dog access rules
Picnic and fitness
apparatus areas
58. The proposal is
to remove ambiguous rules and rely on the dog access rule that applies to the
wider location discussed in the preceding submission topics under highly
sensitive, high use, dog friendly and standard areas.
59. Currently the
Great Barrier Local Board has rules that require dogs to be under control on a
leash in ‘picnic areas’ and ‘fitness apparatus areas’. These areas are not
defined and rules are difficult to enforce.
60. No submission
points were received in relation to this matter, meaning the proposed change
can be adopted without deliberation.
Dog exercise
areas
61. The proposal is
to reclassify the fenced area directly north of Okiwi Airfield as a ‘designated
dog exercise area’ and reclassify all other ‘dog exercise areas’ as under
control off a leash areas to align with the definitions in the Auckland Council
Policy on Dogs 2012.
62. Currently on
Great Barrier Island there are six areas that were previously identified as
‘dog exercise areas’ where dogs can be taken under control off a leash. The
Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 provides an Auckland-wide definition for
‘under control off a leash areas’ which refer to a place shared with other
users and ‘designated dog exercise areas’ which refer to a place where dog
owners are the priority user.
63. No specific
submission points were received in relation to this matter.
Submission topic 7 – Other matters
64. A total of 35
submission points were received in relation to matters that are not within the
scope of the proposed changes. A summary of the decisions sought are shown in
Table 4 below. The Panel cannot make decisions on these matters but can make
recommendations to the relevant authority.
Table 4: Summary of other matters raised
|
Other matter
|
Total submission points
|
|
More dog parks
|
2
|
|
More rubbish bins
|
1
|
|
More/better dog owner education
|
8
|
|
More/better enforcement
|
5
|
|
More/better signage
|
5
|
|
Improvement to the process
|
4
|
|
Additional control on cats to protect wildlife
|
3
|
|
Require dogs to undertake bird aversion training
|
4
|
|
Kaitoke Beach foreshore
|
1
|
|
Okupu Beach foreshore
|
2
|
Staff
comments
65. The provision of
facilities such as dog parks and rubbish bins are a matter for the local board
as part of its management of local parks.
66. Council’s
Licencing and Compliance Services provide education and enforcement services.
67. Signage will be improved as areas are reviewed or as part of parks
maintenance.
68. The controls on
dogs on the foreshore at Kaitoke Beach and Okupu Beach are administered by the
Department of Conservation. Consideration
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Statement of Proposal
|
15
|
|
bView
|
Deliberation worksheet
|
101
|
|
cView
|
Submissions
|
103
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Justin Walters - Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws
John Nash - Relationship Manager Great Barrier &
Waiheke
|
