Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Friday 12 August 2016 9.30am Freyberg
Room, |
Puketāpapa Local Board Dog Access Review Panel
OPEN MINUTE ITEM ATTACHMENTS
|
13 3. John Skeates (10.15am)
14 Deliberations
A. Deliberations worksheet - Puketapapa Local Board area 15
B. Amendments to the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 19
Puketāpapa Local Board Dog Access Review Panel 12 August 2016 |
|
Attachment 2 Deliberation worksheet – Puketapapa Local Board area
The worksheet below can be used to summarise the information in the Hearing and deliberation report on proposed changes to local dog access rules in the Puketapapa Local Board area in table format to assist with deliberations. The last column is to be completed during deliberations and will be used to inform the drafting of the Panel decision report.
Highly Sensitive Area
Matter to be considered |
Current rule |
Proposed change |
Summary of submissions |
Staff recommendation (including reasons and alternative options) |
Panel decision |
Additional notes |
|
The Western Manukau Harbour beach and foreshore from Lynfield Cove eastwards to 70 Aldersgate Road, Grannys Bay. |
High Use Area (Time and Season rule) |
Highly Sensitive Area (Dogs Prohibited rule) |
· 36 submission points commented on the proposed highly sensitive area as a whole. · 11 submission points want the whole area as a standard area. · 10 submission points did not support the proposal. · 9 submission points want the whole area dog friendly. · 4 submission points want the whole area less restrictive.
Note: There were submission points received on individual bays in this area, individual bay numbers and the general numbers been added together in the table in the Hearings report. |
|
To identify the Western Manukau Harbour beach and foreshore from Lynfield Cove eastwards to the boat ramp at Faulkner Bay (Wakowhai Park) as a dog friendly area (under control off a leash).
To identify the Eastern Manukau Harbour beach and foreshore area from the boat ramp at Faulkner Bay (Wakowhai Park) eastwards to 54A Seacliffe Road as a standard area (under control on a leash).
|
|
Dog Friendly Areas
Matter to be considered |
Current rule |
Proposed change |
Summary of submissions |
Staff recommendation (including reasons and alternative options) |
Panel decision |
Additional notes |
|
The Eastern Manukau Harbour beach and foreshore from 70 Aldersgate Road, Grannys Bay eastwards to 54A Seacliffe Road |
High Use Area (Time and Season rule) |
Dog friendly area (Dogs under control off a leash rule) |
· 6 submission points supported the proposal. · 2 submission points did not support the proposal. · 1 submission point wanted the whole area to be highly sensitive. · 1 submission point wanted the whole area to be high use. · 1 submission point wanted the whole area to be standard. · 1 submission point specifically wanted Granny’s Bay to be a highly sensitive area. |
|
To identify the Western Manukau Harbour beach and foreshore from Lynfield Cove eastwards to the boat ramp at Faulkner Bay (Wakowhai Park) as a dog friendly area (under control off a leash).
To identify the Eastern Manukau Harbour beach and foreshore area from the boat ramp at Faulkner Bay (Wakowhai Park) eastwards to 54A Seacliffe Road as a standard area (under control on a leash).
|
|
Standards Areas
Matter to be considered |
Current rule |
Proposed change |
Summary of submissions |
Staff recommendation (including reasons and alternative options) |
Panel decision |
Additional notes |
|
All other parks adjacent to the Manukau beach and foreshore. |
Standard area (under control on a leash) |
Standard area (under control on a leash) |
· 1 submission point supported the proposal.
|
Option 1: To identify all other parks adjacent to the Manukau beach and foreshore as a standard area.
Reasons: To maintain the status quo.
Staff recommend option 1 |
To identify all other parks adjacent to the Manukau beach and foreshore as a standard area.
|
|
Ambiguous Rules - Other
Matter to be considered |
Current rule |
Proposed change |
Summary of submissions |
Staff recommendation (including reasons and alternative options) |
Panel decision |
Additional notes |
|
Picnic and fitness apparatus |
Standard Area (Under control on a leash rule) |
Replace the current general rule and rely on whichever dog access rule applies to that location. |
· 2 submission points requested that in future picnic areas be standard areas (under control on a leash rule). |
Option 1: To replace the current general rule and rely on whichever dog access rule applies to that location.
Reasons: To make the rules easier to understand and enforce.
Option 2: To maintain the status quo and retain the current standard area, under control on a leash rule.
Reason: To maintain the status quo and therefore not need to communicate access rule changes.
Staff recommend option 1 |
To replace the current general rule and rely on whichever dog access rule applies to that location.
|
|
|
Dog exercise areas |
Dog exercise area (Under control off a leash rule) |
Dog Friendly Area (Under control off a leash rule) |
General · 1 submission point supported the proposal. The grassy south west side of Waikowhai Park · 6 submission points were supportive of the proposal. Manukau Domain · 6 submission points were supportive of the proposal. · 1 submission point wanted a more restrictive rule.
|
Option 1: To reclassify the 10 dog exercise areas as dog friendly areas, the rule being under control off a leash.
Reasons: This would be consistent with the policy on dogs and the majority of owners will continue to be able to take their dog under control off a leash in these spaces.
Option 2: To maintain the status quo and retain the current dog exercise area rule.
Reason: To maintain the status quo and therefore not need to communicate access rule changes, though this is inconsistent with the policy on dogs and the description does not align with their use as shared spaces.
Staff recommend option 1 |
To reclassify the 10 dog exercise areas as dog friendly areas, the rule being under control off a leash.
|
|
General submission points:
· 26 general submission points were received
· 11 opposed the proposal in its entirety
· 1 supported the area types proposed as sensible and easy to explain