|
Howick Local
Board
23 August 2016
|
|
Hearing and
deliberations report on proposed changes to local dog access rules in the
Howick Local Board area
File No.: CP2016/17168
Purpose
1. To support the Howick Local
Board Dog Access Hearing Panel with a summary of submissions on the proposed
changes to local dog access rules in the Howick Local Board area.
Executive
summary
2. The Howick
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 Howick Local Board area (resolution
HW/2016/233).
3. The Howick
Local Board adopted the proposed changes at its business meeting on the 9 May
2016 (resolution HW/2016/233). 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 297 submissions were received and 26 submitters indicated that
they wished to be heard.
4. The hearing
and deliberation process requires the Panel to conduct public meetings to:
· hear from the 26 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 Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 at
its 29 September 2016 meeting.
5. 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 Howick 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 – Howick 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.
|
Comments
Proposed Changes to Local Dog Access Rules
6. In 2012,
local boards were delegated responsibility to review dog access rules for local
parks, beaches and foreshore areas (resolution GB/2012/157).
7. Reviewing dog
access rules requires 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
· public hearing, deliberation and
decisions on the proposed changes.
8. At its
business meeting on 14 December 2015, the Howick Local Board resolved to review
its local dog access rules in 2016 (resolution HW/2015/181).
9. Following a
pre-consultation period to gather information and initial community views, the
Howick Local Board adopted proposed changes on the 9 May 2016 for public
consultation (resolution HW/2016/233).
10. The Howick
Local Board Dog Access Hearing Panel (‘the Panel’) was also appointed to hear,
deliberate and decide on submissions to the proposed changes (resolution
HW/2016/233).
11. The proposed
changes to dog access rules include to:
· prohibit
dogs on the foreshore (including intertidal mangrove) areas along the south
western coastline of the local board area. This area extends from Wakaaranga
Creek to Highbrook Creek and includes Pakuranga Creek
· allow dogs under control on a leash
on the reserve and walkway areas along the south western coastline of the local
board area. This area includes the Rotary walkway
· prohibit
dogs on Mangemangeroa Reserve and Chisbury Terrace Reserve and associated
foreshore
· amend and apply the time and season
rule on Bucklands Beach (including Little Bucklands Beach), Cockle Bay, Eastern
Beach, Howick Beach, and Mellons Bay Beach
· allow dogs under control off a leash
to 103 dog friendly areas across the local board area, including to Musick
Point Esplanade Reserve and quiet beach areas adjacent to Howick Beach,
Bucklands Beach, Eastern Beach and Mellons Bay
· allow dogs under control on a leash
on Tainui Reserve
· introduce a default under control on
a leash rule
· remove the under control on a leash
on any ‘farm paddock in a park occupied by stock’ and replace it with
location-specific rules.
12. A full copy of
the proposed changes is contained in Attachment A – Statement of Proposal.
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 Howick Local Board area
· a notice in social media channels
(i.e. on Facebook and in Neighbourly)
· a notice in the Howick Times,
Pakuranga Times, Howick and Botany Times and Eastern Courier
· Howick Local Board ‘e-bulletin’,
which is distributed to the Howick stakeholder database
· flyers and posters in local board
offices and libraries.
14. 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
15. 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 Policy on Dogs 2012 and Dog Management Bylaw 2012 at
its 29 September meeting.
16. The Panel
needs to consider the following statutory and policy requirements in its
hearing, deliberation and decision:
· 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 A).
17. The above
statutory and policy requirements are detailed in Attachment A. A worksheet is
provided in Attachment B – Deliberations worksheet to assist the Panel in its
deliberations.
Summary of Submissions
18. A total of 297
submissions were received with 1261 submission points. 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
|
234
|
79%
|
|
Non dog owners
|
63
|
21%
|
|
Local residents
|
252
|
85%
|
|
Non-local
|
45
|
15%
|
|
Local dog owners
|
203
|
68%
|
|
Local non dog owners
|
49
|
16%
|
19. The submission
points are summarised by topic areas aligned with 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.
20. A full copy of
the submissions is attached in Attachment C - Submissions.
Submission topic 1 – General Commentary
21. The Panel can
consider the following general submission points about the proposal under any
of the subsequent submission topics.
22. A total of 66
submission points addressed the overall proposal. Of these:
· eight support the proposal in its
entirety
· 30 oppose the proposal in its
entirety and 24 others want more dog access. Reasons include the need for areas
where dogs can exercise freely off a leash for the well-being of their dogs
· four local dog owners want no
restrictions at all, if on a leash at all times.
Submission
topic 2 – Highly sensitive areas
23. Highly sensitive areas are places
where the presence of a dog can have a negative effect on its environment,
examples of this include ecologically sensitive habitats where vulnerable
species of birds roost, feed or breed.
24. To protect wildlife, the proposal
is:
· to
prohibit dogs on the foreshore (including intertidal mangrove) areas along the
south western coastline of the local board area. This area extends from
Wakaaranga Creek to Highbrook Creek and includes Pakuranga Creek (refer Table 7
of Attachment A)
· to
prohibit dogs on Mangemangeroa Reserve and Chisbury Terrace Reserve and
associated foreshore areas.
25. Currently:
· the
Department of Conservation administer and prohibit dogs from the Crown
foreshore along parts of the south western coastline of the local board area
(Wakaaranga Creek and foreshore adjacent to Curacao Place Esplanade Reserve and
Bramley Drive Reserve)
· dogs
are allowed under control off a leash on all other foreshore areas along the
south western coastline of the local board area
· dogs
are prohibited on the foreshore areas of Mangemangeroa Reserve but on the
reserve they are allowed under control on a leash on all bush walks and stock
paddocks
· dogs
are allowed under control off a leash on Chisbury Terrace Reserve and
associated foreshore areas.
26. A total of 121 submission points
were received on this topic. Of these:
· 46
commented on south western coastline of the local board area
· 71
commented on Mangemangeroa Reserve and Chisbury Terrace Reserve
· two
dog owners wanted Tiraumea Park to allow dogs under control off a leash.
South western coastline of the local board area
27. Of the 46 submission points that
commented on the coastline:
· 19
(10 local non-dog owners and nine local dog owners) support the proposal.
Reasons include:
o prohibit
dogs for the protection of bird species, it is inappropriate for dogs to be in
these ecologically sensitive areas
o some
dog owners are unable to control their dogs from accessing these areas.
· 18
submission points (16 dog owners and two non-dog owners) want an under control
on a leash rule for the coastline area. Reasons include:
o dogs
on a lead are unlikely to be a danger to the wildlife in the area
o a
prohibition of dogs to this coastline area is too restrictive and on a leash is
more appropriate.
· Nine
(eight local dog owners and one local non-dog owner) oppose the proposal.
Reasons include:
o insufficient
evidence that dogs are a threat to wildlife
o owners
are able to keep their dogs under control
o proposal
is too restrictive and unfair to dog owners as large areas are prohibited.
Mangemangeroa Reserve and
Chisbury Terrace
28. Of the 71 submission points to
Mangemangeroa and Chisbury Terrace reserves:
· 12
(including five local dog owners and five local non-dog owners) support the
proposal. Reasons include:
o agree
with the protection of wildlife
o dogs
interfere with other users, including the cattle
o often
dogs are off a leash in these areas and do not comply with the on a leash rule.
· 36
(all local dog owners) want dogs allowed under control on a leash. Reasons
include:
o the
proposal is too restrictive to dog owners, as many dog owners use the area with
their dogs
o dogs
on a leash are not a risk to wild life
o the
foreshore walkway from Shelley Beach to Mangemangeroa Reserve is well used,
including by dog walkers.
· 21
(including 17 local dog owners and three local non-dog owners), oppose the
proposal. Reasons include:
o the
proposal is too restrictive to dog owners, as many dog owners use the area with
their dogs
o insufficient
evidence that dogs disturb wildlife
o the
area is part of a thoroughfare from the foreshore and coastline.
· two
want better enforcement in Mangemangeroa Reserve instead of a ban because they
consider that most dog owners are not adhering to the current rules.
Staff comments
29. The proposal along the south
western coastline of the local board area was based on biodiversity advice that
the saltmarsh and mangrove areas are significant habitat for wetland and
saltmarsh birds (refer to ‘Memo from Biodiversity’ in Attachment A).
Submission topic 3 – High use areas
30. 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, 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.
31. The proposal
identifies six beaches in the Howick Local Board as high use areas, subject to
the proposed time and season rule. The six beaches are:
· Cockle Bay Beach
· Howick Beach (from westernmost boat ramp
to Rangitoto View Road)
· Mellons Bay Beach (southeast of water
pipe)
· Bucklands Beach (south of boat ramp
opposite Devon Road)
· Eastern Beach (south of northernmost
water pipe)
· Little Bucklands Beach.
32. These six
beaches are currently subject to the current time and season rule. Table 3
below summarises the current and proposed time and season rule.
Table 3 Current and proposed time and season rules
for high use areas
|
|
Current rule
|
Proposed rule
|
|
Summer
Morning
|
Before 9am
|
Before 10am
|
|
Summer Core
hours
|
9am to 7pm
|
10am to 7pm
|
|
Summer
evening
|
After 7pm
|
After 7pm
|
|
Summer
Season start and end
|
Daylight savings
|
Labour weekend to
31 March
|
|
Winter
mornings
|
All times
|
Before 10am
|
|
Winter core
hours
|
All times
|
10am to 4pm
|
|
Winter
evenings
|
All times
|
After 4pm
|
|
Prohibited
|
|
On a leash
|
|
Off a leash
|
Submissions on time and season
rule
33. A total of
1211 submission points commented on the time and season options. Of these:
· 1063 submission points (88 per cent)
were received from locals
· 118 submission points (ten per cent)
were received from non-locals
· 986 submission points (81 per cent) from
dog owners
· 195 submissions points (16 per cent)
from non-dog owners.
34. Eight
submission points, all from dog owners, oppose any time and season rule.
Reasons include:
· work hours and shift work make walking
the dog at restricted hours too difficult
· registration fees for dogs are too high
to warrant restriction
· dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners
should be specifically targeted, rather than enacting a time and season rule.
35. Table 4 below
summarises the preferred time and season option based on number of submissions
points. Attachment D – Submissions on time and season rule provides a summary
of all time and season rule submission points.
Table 4 Preferred time and
season rule by total number of submission points
|
|
Preferred
rule
|
Total Subs
|
Dog owners
|
Non-dog
owners
|
Locals
|
Non-Locals
|
|
Summer
morning
|
Before 10am
|
100
|
91
|
9
|
92
|
8
|
|
Summer core
hours
|
10am to 7pm
|
9
|
7
|
2
|
8
|
1
|
|
Summer
evening
|
After 7pm
|
79*
|
71
|
7
|
73
|
5
|
|
Season start
and end
|
Daylight
savings
|
30
|
28
|
2
|
30
|
0
|
|
Season start
and end
|
Labour
weekend to 31March
|
33
|
30
|
3
|
29
|
4
|
|
Winter
mornings
|
Off a leash
at all times
|
96**
|
87
|
7
|
89
|
5
|
|
Winter core
hours
|
Off a leash
at all times
|
105
|
97
|
6
|
99
|
4
|
|
Winter
evenings
|
Off a leash
at all times
|
97
|
88
|
7
|
90
|
5
|
|
Totals
|
|
549
|
499 (91%)
|
43
(8%)
|
510
(93%)
|
32
(6%)
|
Note: * one submitter did not
state if local or owns a dog
** two submitters did not state if local or
owns a dog
36. Submitters on
the above time and season rules also commented that:
· weekday and weekend access should be
different to reflect use
· inclement weather in winter suggests
that the beaches are not well used, therefore there shouldn’t be time and
season rules
· the tidal nature of some of Howick’s
beaches make the time and season rule difficult to comply with.
Submissions
on high use areas
37. A total of 12
submission points commented on the six proposed high use beaches to be subject
to the proposed time and season rule. Of these:
· eight (all from local dog owners) oppose
the identification of Mellons Bay Beach. Two of those want dogs allowed under
control off a leash. Reasons include:
o very few non-dog owners use Mellons
Bay beach
o do not support the change in dog
access rules in this area
o the off leash area at the north
west of the water pipe of Mellons Bay beach is too slippery and dangerous for
use.
· two dog owners want dogs allowed under
control off a leash on Eastern Beach in winter
· in Cockle Bay, one dog owner wants the
right hand corner of Cockle Bay (towards Shelley Beach) to be a dog friendly
area. Another dog owner wanted less restrictive rules.
Staff
comments
38. The views
expressed in Table 4 reflect local dog owner views who were the majority of the
submitters on this topic (91 per cent of time and season submission points).
39. The Panel may
wish to consider the views of non-dog owners which were expressed in the
Peoples Panel survey undertaken in March 2016. This survey had more responses
from non-dog owners (36 per cent dog owners and 64 per cent non-dog owners).
40. Figure 1 below
summarises the time and season preferences from the survey. The figure shows that
the views of dog owners to the survey and proposal are the same, while non-dog
owners seek more restrictive rules.
Figure
1: Time and season preferences for dog and non-dog owners
Submission topic 4 – Dog friendly areas
41. 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.
42. The proposal
identifies 103 dog friendly areas where dogs are allowed under control off a
leash. This includes Musick Point Esplanade Reserve and quiet beach areas
adjacent to Howick Beach, Bucklands Beach, Eastern Beach and Mellons Bay.
43. Currently dogs
are allowed under control off a leash on 102 of the above 103 areas. The
exception is Musick Point Esplanade Reserve where dogs are currently allowed
under control on a leash.
44. A total of 52
general submission points were received on this topic. Of these:
· eight support the proposal. Of
these:
o two think some of the 103 parks
are not suitable for dogs off a leash. Reasons include areas being too close to
the road and alternatives should be found.
· 33 comment on the dog friendly areas
next to time and season beaches. Of these:
o 21 support the proposal. This
includes Howick Beach (n=7), Bucklands Beach (n=4), Eastern Beach (n=1).
Reasons include it provides the flexibility to take dogs to these areas when
not allowed on time and season beaches. Some commented that these beaches are
tidal and not always accessible
o three support and one opposes the
proposed area to the north of Eastern Beach. The submitter in opposition wants
to protect reef and shell fish beds in this area and instead wants the dog
friendly area to be south of Eastern Beach
o three support and five oppose the
proposed area adjacent to Mellons Bay. Reasons for opposition include the area
is too slippery and unsafe for dog walkers. Those submitters instead want dog
access to Mellons Bay.
· nine comment on Musick Point
Esplanade Reserve. Seven in support with some already using it as an off a
leash area, one opposes, and another wants a more restrictive rule
· one did not support the proposal for
dog friendly areas, commenting that there should be more dog friendly areas,
not less
· one submitter asked for more dog
friendly areas in the Flat Bush area.
Staff
comments
45. None.
Submission topic 5 – Standard area
46. A standard
area is a place that does not fall into any of the other three categories.
These places may include:
· 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
· places that are not suitable for
dogs to run and play off a leash.
47. The proposal
identifies the following standard areas where dogs are allowed under control on
a leash (full list in Table 10 of Attachment A):
· the reserves and walkways adjacent
to the south western coastline of the local board area. Currently, the area
from Wakaaranga Creek to Highbrook Creek (Rotary walkway) is an under control
on a leash area. Areas from Millen Avenue Esplanade to Pakuranga Creek (the
Pakuranga Country Club Esplanade) are currently an under control off a leash
area
· Murphy’s Bush and Point View
Reserve. Currently dogs are allowed under control on a leash on bush walks and
under control off a leash elsewhere on both reserves.
· Tainui Reserve (adjacent to Cockle
Bay). Currently this area has a time and season dog access rule (Table 3)
· all other local park, beach and
foreshore areas not specifically identified as a prohibited, time and season or
under control off a leash area. This is known as a default dog access rule.
Currently, the default dog access rule is under control off a leash.
48. A total 81
submission points were received about this topic. Of these:
· 24 are about Rotary walkway. Of
these:
o 11 support the proposal because
the walkway is busy and dogs interfere with other users. Some of these
submitters want under control on a leash access for the walkway because they
incorrectly assumed the proposal prohibited dogs
o 11 oppose the proposal, four of whom
want dogs allowed under control off a leash. Reasons include that cyclists are
a bigger nuisance and to enhance the experience for dog walkers
o two comment that signage outlining
dog access rules need to be clearer and that dangerous dogs along the walkway
should be muzzled.
· 16 want dogs allowed under control
on a leash on esplanades, walkways, and parks along the south western coastline
· one non-dog owner opposes the
proposal on Bramley Drive Reserve
· one dog owner supports the proposal
on Fisher Parade Esplanade Reserve
· two dogs owners comment on bushwalks
(such as those on Murphy’s Bush and Point View Reserve), one supports the
proposal, the other wants less restrictive rules
· two dogs owners comment on Point
View Reserve, one supports the proposal, the other wants under control off a
leash dog access
· two dogs owners comment on Tainui
Reserve, one supports the proposal, the other wants under control off a leash
dog access
· one wants to retain the current
under control off a leash rule on Tiramea Park because it is a good dog
exercise area
· 32 are about the change to the
default dog access rule. Of these:
o 20 (seven dog owners, 13 non-dog
owners, four non-locals) support the proposal. Reasons include dogs interfere
with other users, some dog owners are unable to control dogs off a leash, don’t
want dogs coming up to them, and the irresponsible attitude of dog owners
o 12 oppose the proposal. Of these
five want under control off a leash, six oppose the proposal, and one wants
dogs prohibited from all public places except in specific dog areas
o reasons for opposition include
that proposed dog friendly areas are not ideal for an off leash dog and
restrict the ability to walk dogs at neighbourhood parks after work hours.
Staff
comments
49. None.
Submission topic 6 - Ambiguous dog access rules
50. The proposal
is to remove the current rule about dogs on park farm paddocks and rely on
whichever dog access rule applies to the location, such as highly sensitive or
standard area.
51. Currently dogs
are required to be under control on a leash in any park farm paddock occupied
by stock. Mangemangeroa Reserve is the only park with stock in the Howick Local
Board area. Submissions on Mangemangeroa Reserve are summarised in Submission
topic 1 – Highly sensitive areas.
52. Three
submission points in support were received. Reasons include because it makes
rules clearer and easier to understand.
Staff
comments
53. None.
Submission topic 7 – Other matters
54. A total of 89
submission points were received in relation to matters that are outside the
scope of the proposed changes. The Panel cannot make decisions on these matters
but can make recommendations to the relevant authority. Table 8 below
summarises the submission points made under this topic.
Table 8 Submission points on
other matters
|
Matter raised
|
Total submission
points
|
|
Dog owner education
|
7
|
|
Improvement to the process
|
16
|
|
More dog parks
|
6
|
|
More rubbish bins
|
5
|
|
More/better enforcement
|
11
|
|
More/better signage
|
8
|
|
Other suggestions:
· the need to control
pests such as cats, rats and possums
· complaints about
council process
· complaints about
irresponsible dog owners
· that highly sensitive
areas should be closed to the public
|
36
|
Staff
comments
55. None.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Statement of Proposal (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
bView
|
Deliberations Worksheet
|
19
|
|
cView
|
Submissions (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
dView
|
Time and season rule submissions
|
21
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws
Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager
|
