|
Henderson-Massey
Local Board
16 August 2016
|
|
Hearing and
deliberation report on proposed changes to local dog access rules in the
Henderson Massey Local Board area
File No.: CP2016/17077
Purpose
1. To support
the Henderson-Massey Local Board Dog Access Hearing Panel with a summary of
submissions on the proposed changes to local dog access rules in the
Henderson-Massey Local Board area.
Executive summary
2. The
Henderson-Massey Local Board Dog Access Hearing Panel (‘the Panel’) has been
appointed to hear, deliberate and make decisions on submissions received about
proposed changes to local dog access rules in the Henderson-Massey Local Board
area (resolution HM/2016/69)
3. The
Henderson-Massey Local Board adopted the proposed changes at its business
meeting on the 19 May 2016 (resolution HM/2016/69). The public was notified
about proposed changes on 10 June 2016. The public submission period closed six
weeks later on 17 July 2016. A total of 575 submissions were received and 48
submitters indicated that they wished to be heard.
4. Overwhelmingly,
the submissions related to proposed changes on the Harbourview-Orangihina area
(including walkway) and coastal walkway around the Te Atatu Peninsula to Moire Park
and State Highway 1 (in the west).
5. The
hearing and deliberation process requires the Panel to conduct public meetings
to:
· hear from the 48 submitters who wish
to speak to their submission
· deliberate all matters
raised in written and oral submissions
· decide on changes
to local dog access rules (including a start date) by adopting a decision
report containing amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012
· request that the governing body
amend the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 accordingly at its 29
September meeting.
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 Henderson-Massey Local
Board:
a) in relation to
proposed changes to local dog access rules contained in the document titled
‘Amendments to Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 – Henderson-Massey Local
Board May 2016’:
i) receive the submissions in
Attachment 3
ii) receive one late submission
in Attachment 4
iii) hear the submitters who wish
to be heard in support of their submission.
|
Comments
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. Reviewing dog
access rules requires the special consultative procedure under the Local
Government Act 2002. This process requires that proposed changes to dog access
rules (‘proposed changes’) are adopted, and the public is notified for public
submissions. Public hearing and deliberation must take place decisions are made
on the proposed changes, which must take into account the matters raised in
submissions.
9. At its
business meeting on 19 November 2015, the Henderson-Massey Local Board resolved
to review its local dog access rules in 2016 (resolution HM/2015/134)
10. Following a
pre-consultation period to research, gather information and initial community
views, staff presented the ‘Statement of Proposal’ to the Henderson-Massey
Local Board. The Henderson Massey Local Board then adopted these proposed
changes on the 19 May 2016 for public consultation (resolution HM/2016/69).
11. The
Henderson-Massey Local Board Dog Access Hearing Panel (‘the Panel’) was also
appointed to hear, deliberate and decide on submissions to the proposed changes
(resolution HM/2016/69).
12. The proposed
changes to dog access rules are:
· to prohibit dog access to the
Harbourview-Orangihina area, as well as beach, foreshore and intertidal areas
around the Te Atatu Peninsula to protect vulnerable bird species
· to identify 168 under control off a
leash areas within the Henderson Massey local board area
· identify Jack Colvin Park, Jack Pringle
Park , Te Pai Park and Shona Esplanade as areas where dogs must be under
control on a leash and apply a default rule, that dogs must be under control on
a leash unless otherwise specified
· to remove the ambiguous dog access rules
that reference picnic areas and fitness apparatus and replace it with a
place-specific dog access rule.
13. A full copy of
the proposed changes is contained in Attachment 1.
Public
Notification for Submissions
14. 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 Henderson-Massey Local Board area
· a notice in local board social media
channels (i.e. the Henderson Massey Facebook page and on Neighbourly)
· a press release and a notice in the
Western Leader
· notices on community newsletters
· 17 billboards at
Harbourview-Orangihina walkway, Jack Colvin Park, Te Pai Park, Jack Pringle
Park and Shona Esplanade
· flyers and posters in local
libraries, the local board office and community centres.
15. All relevant
documents, including submission forms, were posted on the council’s website and
made available through local libraries and service centres.
Hearing and deliberations process
16. The process to
consider and decide on proposed changes to local dog access rules is:
· to receive all submissions,
including any late submissions
· to conduct public hearings and hear
from any submitter who wishes to speak in support of their submission
· to publicly deliberate on the
matters raised in written and oral submissions
· to decide on
changes to local dog access rules (including a start date) by adopting a
decision report containing amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs
2012
· to request that the governing body
amend the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 accordingly at its 29
September meeting.
17. The Panel
needs to consider the following requirements in its hearing, deliberation and
decisions:
· public safety and comfort, the
protection of wildlife, and the recreational needs of dogs and their owners
· the region-wide standard for summer
beach time and season (if a time and season rule is proposed)
· making dog access rules that are
easy to understand (i.e. practical, enforceable and clear)
· the views and evidence raised by
submitters
· information used to develop the
proposed changes (refer Attachment 1).
18. These
statutory and policy requirements are detailed in Attachment 1. Also, a
deliberations worksheet in Attachment 2 will assist the Panel in its
deliberations.
Summary of Submissions
19. A total of 575
submissions were received with 1680 submission points. There was one late
submission and two kinds of pro-forma submissions. Table 1 below summarises the
submitter groups.
Table 1:
Submitter groups to Henderson Massey local dog access review
|
Submitter group
|
Number of submissions
|
Percentage of submissions
|
|
Dog owners
|
277
|
48%
|
|
Non dog owners
|
294
|
51%
|
|
Local residents
|
449
|
78%
|
|
Non-local
|
122
|
21%
|
|
Local dog owners
|
221
|
38%
|
|
Local non dog owners
|
228
|
40%
|
|
Pro-forma 1
|
12
|
2%
|
|
Pro-forma 2
|
210
|
40%
|
20. The submission
points are summarised by proposed changes. Issues
outside the scope of the statement of proposal are summarised in Submission
Topic 7. For each topic, staff comments and other relevant information is
provided where appropriate.
21. A full copy of
the submissions is attached in Attachment 3 and 4.
Submission topic 1 – General Commentary
22. A number of general submission points were received that addressed
proposal as a whole. The Panel can consider these under any of the subsequent
submission topics.
23. A total of 67
submission points addressed the overall proposal. Of these:
· 13 supported the proposal in its
entirety for the protection of wildlife
· 34 opposed the proposal in its
entirety and 20 requested more dog access. Reasons included opposition to
proposed dog prohibitions in popular dog walking destinations.
Submission topic 2 – Highly Sensitive areas
24. Highly
sensitive areas are places where the presence of a dog can have a negative
effect, such as ecologically sensitive habitats where vulnerable species of
birds roost, feed or breed.
25. The proposal
prohibits dog access to all foreshore, wetland, shell banks and intertidal areas
from Harbourview-Orangihina (including the walkway), in the east around the Te
Atatu Peninsula, to Moire Park and State Highway 1 in the west (Attachment 1).
26. Currently dogs
are allowed under control on a leash on all foreshore, wetland, shell banks and
intertidal areas, including the Harbourview-Orangihina area.
27. It is noted
that the Department of Conservation prohibits dogs on crown foreshore areas
adjacent to Pollen Island and Traherne Island, located next to
Harbourview-Orangihina area.
28. A total of 843
submissions centred on the proposal for highly sensitive areas and the
protection of wildlife. A total of:
· 245 submission points commented on the
proposal for highly sensitive areas in general (i.e. all foreshore, wetland,
shell banks and intertidal areas)
· 339 submission points commented on the
proposal for Harbourview-Orangihina area, including the walkway
· 238 submission points commented on the
walkway around the Te Atatu Peninsula, i.e. from the Harbourview-Orangihina in
the east to Moire Park and State Highway 1, in the west
· 21 submission points commented on
specific parts of the walkway around the Te Atatu Peninsula
General proposal for highly sensitive areas
29. A total of 227
general submission points were received. Of these:
· 38 support the proposed prohibition of
dogs. Reasons include:
o area is an important and diverse
habitat for vulnerable native wildlife
o evidence of the impact of dogs on
vulnerable bird life
o witnessed off a leash dogs chasing
wading birds and shorebirds, despite the on leash rule in this area
o continued non-compliance with the
current on leash rule in this area is increasingly a risk to wildlife.
· 57 oppose the prohibition of dogs.
Reasons include:
o birds in these areas are more
likely to be threatened from cats, stokes and possums than dogs
o proposal is a major restriction on
access to the coastline and unfair on dog owners.
· 112 want dogs allowed under control on a
leash in highly sensitive areas. Reasons include:
o dogs on a leash are not a threat to
wildlife
o insufficient evidence that dogs
threaten the wildlife in this area
o the areas in the highly sensitive
proposal are popular dog walking destinations.
· 10 want dogs allowed under control off a
leash
30. 8 want a time
and season rule. Two submitters commented on using the time and season rule
around key breeding seasons instead of the proposed prohibition of dogs along
the foreshore areas.
Figure 1: Submitter
profiles for the overall proposal on highly sensitive areas
31. Figure 1 above
illustrates the main views by submitter group. Majority of the submitters for
this proposal are local dog owners. About 125 submitters oppose the proposal,
85 of these would prefer an under control on a leash rule instead.
Harbourview-Orangihina area and walkway
32. A total of 328
submission points were received on the proposal to prohibit dog access in the
Harbourview-Orangihina area. Of these:
· 14 supported the proposal. Reasons
include:
o evidence of significant native bird
species in the Harbourview-Orangihina area in particular
o dogs are a threat to the birdlife
in the ecologically sensitive areas, but also a threat to resting shorebirds
along the walkway
o the level of non-compliance with
the current under control on a leash rule along the walkway poses a threat to
wildlife
o area should be consistent with dog
prohibitions on wetland areas across the region.
· 237 (including the submission from
pro-forma 2) oppose the proposal (including to the walkway). Reasons include:
o a ban on dogs from the walkway is
too restrictive for dog owners in the area
o insufficient evidence of vulnerable
wildlife that warrants a prohibition of dogs.
· 77 want under control on a leash rule
on the Harbourview-Orangihina walkway. Reasons include:
o agree with the intent of protecting
wildlife, but dogs on a leash unlikely to be a threat to wildlife in the area
o pests, including cats, stokes and
possums are more likely to pose a threat to the birds than dogs
o the majority of responsible dog
owners should not be punished for some non-compliant dog owners
o typically, dogs do not access the
ecologically sensitive areas along the walkway.
Figure 2 : Submitter
profiles for Harbourview-Orangihina submissions
33. Figure 2 above
illustrates the main views by submitter group. Overwhelmingly, local dog owners
submitted on this proposal, with the majority requesting on leash access to the
area. Of those who support the proposal, most are local residents and dog owners.
Te Atatu Pony Club
34. A total of 4
submission points commented on the upper terraces of the Harbourview walkway
(i.e. the location of the Te Atatu Pony Club). Comments include:
· the extensive fences at the Te Atatu
Pony Club have provided security for the bird species that gather, rest and
breed on the grasslands
· the area has become a de facto
wildlife reserve and aided the presence of rare bird species such as wrybill
and dotterels
· if the Te Atatu Pony Club vacates,
the fencing should be secured to protect this birdlife.
Te
Atatu Peninsula walkway and foreshore areas
35. A total of 238
submission points were received in relation to the proposal to prohibit dog
access on Harbourview-Orangihina walkway and from all foreshore and beach areas
around the Te Atatu Peninsula to Moire Park and State Highway 1. These
submissions centred on the walkway that circles the Te Atatu Peninsula. Of
these 238 submission points:
· four support the proposal to
prohibit dogs on the Te Atatu Peninsula walkway and foreshore areas. Reasons
include:
o the
diversity and vulnerable nature of native wildlife in the wetland and shoreline
of this area deserves protection
o non-compliant dog owners who let
their dogs wander into these sensitive areas threaten the existence of these
wildlife.
· 224 oppose the proposal (this
includes submission points from pro-forma 1). Reasons include:
o proposed
dog ban too restrictive
o walkway
ban suggests that users cannot access foreshore and beaches along the Te Atatu
Peninsula with their dogs
o insufficient
evidence that a ban on dogs will protect wildlife
o Te Atatu Peninsula is well used by
the locals, especially dog walkers and the proposal will negatively impact on
their experience of the walkway / beach and foreshore area.
· ten want an under control on a leash
rule for the Te Atatu Peninsula walkway.
Figure 3: Submitter profile for Te Atatu Peninsula
proposal
36. Figure 3 above
illustrates the main views by submitter group. Majority of the submitters are
local dog owners and do not support the proposal for the Te Atatu Peninsula.
Specific comments on the walkway
37. A total of 16
submission points commented on different parts of the walkway, from the
Harbourview-Orangihina walkway in the east, around the Peninsula, to Moire Park
and Henderson Creek in the west (Table 2).
Table 2: Summary of decisions sought to highly sensitive
area proposals
|
Location
|
Submission Points
|
Decision sought
|
|
|
Total
|
Total dog owner
|
Total non-dog owner
|
Highly sensitive
areas
|
High use area
|
Standard area
|
Dog friendly area
|
Less restrictive
|
|
Lower Harbourview
walkway (towards Pollen Island)
|
1
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower Harbourview
walkway
(Horse Paddock)
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
|
Northern Harbourview
Orangihina walkway to Henderson Creek
|
4
|
4
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
Dawnhaven Esplanade
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Spinnaker Strand to
Kelvin Stand
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
Danica Esplanade to
Pollen Island
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapman Esplanade
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
Henderson Creek
Esplanade
|
3
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
Staff
comments
38. The views
expressed in submissions indicate that:
· most of the local dog owners believe
a dog on a leash is sufficient to protect wildlife
· the area is very ecologically
diverse and unique (in particular the Harbourview-Orangihina area)
· the wildlife is at risk from dog
owners who allow their dogs off a leash in a current under control on a leash
area.
39. From dog
registration data, approximately 13% of households in the Henderson Massey
Local Board area are dog owners. The majority of dog owners to this proposal
are dog owners.
Submission topic 3 – High use areas
40. A high use
area is a place that attracts a lot of people at certain times of the day or
year. 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.
41. The
proposal does not identify any high use areas, but did propose
a time and season rule should any high use areas be identified through public
consultation (Attachment 1).
42. Currently
there are no time and season rules in the Henderson Massey local board
area.
43. Submission
points that want proposed highly sensitive, dog friendly and standard areas to
be high use areas are addressed in submission topics 2, 4 and 5.
44. 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.
45. A
total of 124 submission points were received on the time and season rule. Of
these:
· one opposed any time and season rule
· 123 suggested various time and
season options. Overall, the submission points suggest the following
combinations:
o summer season start Labour weekend
(n=5) and ends 31 March (n=4)
o summer core hours should be 10am
(n=13) to 7pm (n=7)
o summer access before 10am should
be off leash (n=9); from 10am to 7pm should be on leash (n=7) and after 7pm
should be off leash (n=8)
o winter core hours should be 10am
(n=9) to 4pm (n=7)
o winter access before 10am and from
10am to 4pm should be on leash (n=9), with winter evening access as off leash
(n=10).
46. The
majority of submitters are dog owners (n=101) and local to the Henderson Massey
area (n=85). About 24 submitters are non-local and 17 are non-local dog owners
47. Local
submitters supported the principle of a time and season rule to balance use of
an area between non-dog owners and dog owners. Dog owners supported using a
space in off peak hours, and submitters who do not like dogs coming up to them
supported the idea of a prohibition of dogs during peak times
48. Both
local and non-local dog owners supported a region-wide time and season option
to enable ease of access to beaches across the region.
Staff
comments
49. None.
Submission topic 4 – Dog friendly areas
50. A dog friendly
area is a place that is suitable for dogs to run and play off a leash. Non-dog
owners may use these areas less frequently; or shared use, may not have a
significant impact due to the size of the place.
51. The
proposal identifies 168 esplanades and parks within the Henderson Massey local
board area as dog friendly areas.
52. Currently,
all 168 esplanades and parks allow dogs under control off a leash.
53. A total of 24
general submission points were received on this topic. Of these:
· 17 (including 14 local dog owners
and one non-dog owner) supported the proposal. Reasons include:
o having a specific list of parks
suitable for dogs off a leash (areas are not busy)
o having a specific list means
non-dog users know which areas to avoid
o provides large areas to exercise
bigger dogs.
· four want all parks to allow dogs
under control off a leash because dog owners can keep their dogs under control
· one wants dogs on a leash and
muzzled in public places
· two made general comments about signage
in dog friendly parks
54. A total of 26
submissions points were received about specific dog friendly areas. The
decision sought and reasons is summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of decisions
sought to dog friendly area proposals
|
Location
|
Submission Points
|
|
Decision sought
|
Reason
|
|
|
Total
|
Total dog owner
|
Total non-dog owner
|
Highly Sensitive area
|
Standard area
|
Dog friendly area
|
Do Not Support
|
More restrictive
|
Less restrictive
|
|
|
Chapman Strand
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
Popular with dog
owners
|
|
Colwill Esplanade
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protect wildlife
|
|
Featherstone Park
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
Public safety and
comfort
|
|
Henderson Park
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
Provides dog exercise
spaces
|
|
Kakamatu
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
Popular with dog
owners
|
|
Kelvin Strand
|
2
|
2
|
0
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
Popular with dog
owners
|
|
Lowtherhurst
|
3
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Protection of
wildlife
|
|
Moire Park
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
2
|
|
2
|
|
Popular with dog
owners
Protection of
wildlife
|
|
Taipiri Strand
|
7
|
6
|
1
|
|
|
5
|
1
|
|
1
|
Popular with dog owners
|
|
Tui Glen Reserve
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
Public safety and
comfort
|
|
Te Atatu Peninsula
Park
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
Provides dog exercise
spaces
Public safety and
comfort
|
Staff
comments
55. None.
Submission topic 5 – Standard area
1. 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.
2. The proposal
identifies Jack Colvin Park, Jack Pringle Park, Te Pai Park and Shona Esplanade
and default rule as standard (under control on a leash) areas (Attachment 1).
The default rule applies to all park, beach and foreshore areas, where dogs are
not stated as being prohibited, under control off a leash or subject to time
and season rule.
3. Currently
these four parks identified above and default rule are under control off a
leash areas.
4. A total 75
submission points were received in relation to this topic. A total of:
· 50 submission points were received relating
to Jack Colvin Park, Jack Pringle Park, Te Pai Park and Shona Esplanade
· 24 submission points
commented on the proposed default rule.
Jack Colvin Park, Jack Pringle Park and Shona
Esplanade
5. A total of 38
submission points were received relating to Jack Colvin Park, Jack Pringle Park
and Te Pai Park (also see summary in Table 4). Of these:
· 29 support of the proposal for Jack
Colvin Park, Jack Pringle Park and Te Pai Park. Reasons include:
· inappropriate to have dogs off a
leash in a sports park as there is potential for conflict with users
· potential for dog litter on sports
surfaces.
· 8 want dogs allowed under control off a
leash, reasons include:
o sports parks should be accessible to
users when not in use
o the proposal is an unnecessary
restriction on dog owners
· 1 wants dogs prohibited from sports
surfaces.
6. The proposal
for Shona Esplanade received some debate. Of the 12 submission points on Shona
Esplanade:
· four agreed with the proposal (four
local dog owners). Reasons include:
o concern about the spread of Kauri
Dieback
o do not want off leash dogs in busy
sports parks
· three want off leash rules and a
further three do not support the proposal. Reasons include:
o lack of evidence that dogs spread
Kauri Dieback
o on leash rule too restrictive for a
park used by dog walkers
· two submitters want more restrictive
rules than proposed to control the spread of Kauri Dieback.
Default rule
7. A total of 24
submission points were received about the change in default rules. Of these
(also see summary in Table 4):
· 19 support the proposal. Reason
include:
o some dog owners are unable to
control their dogs and it’s safer for other users (including smaller dogs) if
dogs are on leash
o some areas are too busy for dogs
to be off a leash
o some submitters do not like dogs
coming up to them
o dog owners like clear guidelines
around where they can take their dogs.
· three want dogs to be allowed under
control off a leash
· two want dogs to be prohibited.
Reasons include:
o dogs should be prohibited from all
public places unless it is safe
o dogs are a threat to public safety
and comfort, particularly around children.
8. One submitter
did raise the issue of future parks should be considered for dog friendly areas
to add to the stock of these 168 areas.
9. One
submission point commented that the Opunuku Stream cycleway should be on a
leash.
Table 4: Summary of decisions to
standard area proposal
|
Location
|
Submission Points
|
Decision sought
|
|
|
Total
|
Total dog owner
|
Total non-dog owner
|
Highly Sensitive area
|
Standard area
|
Dog friendly area
|
Do not support
|
More restrictive
|
|
Jack Colvin Park
|
13
|
11
|
2
|
|
9
|
3
|
1
|
|
|
Jack Pringle Park
|
15
|
11
|
5
|
1
|
12
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
Te Pai Park
|
10
|
8
|
2
|
|
8
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
Shona Esplanade
|
12
|
10
|
2
|
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
2
|
|
Opunuku Stream cycleway
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
Default rule
|
24
|
14
|
10
|
2
|
19
|
3
|
|
|
|
Totals
|
75
|
54
|
22
|
3
|
53
|
10
|
6
|
3
|
Staff comments
10. The other
issue worth considering is to determine the dog access for future parks, to add
to the stock of dog friendly areas.
Submission topic 6 - Ambiguous dog access rules
Picnic
and fitness apparatus areas
11. 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.
12. Currently,
the Henderson Massey Local Board has a rule that requires dogs must be under
control on a leash in any area that is developed or marked out as a picnic area
and that dogs are prohibited on or within 10 metres of any area that contains
fitness apparatus. These areas are difficult to
communicate and enforce.
13. A total of 10
submission points were received in relation to this topic. The submitters
supported the proposal as it makes the rules easier to understand.
Staff
comments
14. None.
Submission topic 7 – Other matters
15. A total of 148
submission points were received in relation to matters that
are not within the scope of the proposed changes. The Panel cannot make
decisions on these matters but can make recommendations to the relevant
authority.
16. Six submitters
commented about access rules around playgrounds, skate parks, sports fields and
town centres. Five of these submitters sought under control on a leash access
in each of these areas. One submitter sought a prohibition of dog access to
playgrounds.
17. Most of the
‘other suggestion’ (n=66), majority of submission points raised the importance
of controlling the population of stray cats in order to control wildlife. Other
topics included:
· inconsiderate owners are an issue
· complaints
about dog fees
· complaints about council processes
· the creation of dog parks and litter
bins for dog litter.
· specific complaints about areas in the
Henderson Massey local board area that has been considered elsewhere.
18. A summary of the decisions sought are shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5: Summary of decisions sought to
other matters
|
Decision sought
|
Total submission
points
|
|
Dog owner
education
|
13
|
|
Improvement to
the process
|
12
|
|
More dog parks
|
14
|
|
More rubbish
bins
|
3
|
|
More/better
enforcement
|
25
|
|
More/better
signage
|
15
|
|
Other
suggestion
|
66
|
Staff comments
19. None.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Henderson Massey Local Board Dog Access Rules
Statement of Proposal (May 2016)
|
21
|
|
bView
|
Deliberations sheet
|
71
|
|
cView
|
Henderson Massey Local Board Submissions to Dog Access
Rules (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
dView
|
Henderson Massey Local Board Late Submissions
|
73
|
|
eView
|
Memo to Henderson Massey Local Board and Maps of Te
Atatu Peninsula
|
75
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws
Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey,
Waitakere Ranges, Whau
|
