Memo Information Deliberations decisions on proposed Dog Control Policy and Bylaw TO FROM Judicial Committee Christine Tye - Senior Strategic Planner & Policy Analyst DATE 1 March 2016 SUBJECT Deliberations decisions on proposed Dog Control Policy and Bylaw 1 Purpose of Report To present a summary and analysis of submissions received to the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw Statement of Proposal; and to seek the Committees recommendations to Council in order to adopt a revised policy and bylaw. 2 Background The Judicial Committee has delegation for development and review of Council's regulatory policies and district bylaws but cannot adopt a bylaw. This must be by Council resolution. The Council s proposed Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw were open for public feedback from 6 November to 7 December 2015, and 429 submissions were received. A hearing was held with the Judicial Committee on 11 February 2016 and 38 submitters spoke to their submissions and answered questions from the Committee. The draft minutes for the hearing are included in the meeting agenda for 17 March for confirmation. Council will consider the Judicial Committee s recommendations at their meeting scheduled for 18 May 2016. The draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw proposed during consultation, incorporated in the Statement of Proposal, is provided as Attachment A. 3 Issue The Judicial Committee is required to deliberate on submissions received to the proposed Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw. Matters for deliberation and decision are set out in the 'Discussion' section of this report. For each decision required a summary of relevant submissions is provided with staff analysis and a recommendation. 4 Discussion A summary of general feedback about the overall approach of the proposal is included first and requires no decision. This is followed by specific decision matters relating to clauses in the proposed policy and/or bylaw, then decisions on area rules for which the proposed bylaw schedule has been used to present the relevant information. An area that staff wish to highlight for attention is Whangamata Beach - Otahu Estuary from beach access 20 to beach access 23. This area is discussed in the area rules section for Whangamata, however is raised here also as needing additional scrutiny. This area is currently enforced as an off leash dog area, and this was proposed to continue as it provides a part of the beach where people can take dogs off leash during the summer days in Whangamata. Council's regulatory staff strongly support continuing to allow
dogs off leash as this is currently working well, including over the recent summer period when there were no known complaints or incidents recorded. However, submitters expressed a preference for the area to be restricted to dogs citing health and safety concerns and the need to protect the area for birds i.e. dotterel. The Committee should consider the issues relevant to the specific area as well as in the context of the rules for the entire beach. General comments to the proposed approach to dog control Twenty one submitters made general comments about the overall proposal. Of these, 13 submitters commented in support of the proposal which included statements that the proposal: takes a sensible approach to dog control; is concise, clear and comprehensive; meets the objective of encouraging and supporting responsible dog owners while minimising distress and nuisance to the community; recognises the effect of dogs on birds; and is an improvement on the current policy and bylaw. Four of the submitters who generally support the proposal noted exceptions for specific area rules (discussed in the 'area rules' section of this report). Four submitters simply said they want no change from the status quo. Further submitters made similar comments about preferring the status quo in relation to particular parts of the proposal. Two submitters said they consider the bylaw "draconian. One of these submitters also said that "what's currently in place is ridiculous as well". One submitter commented in favour of relaxing dog control rules while another submitter commented against this. Several submitters made comments, generally or as part of feedback to specific parts of the proposal, about the need to support good dog ownership and that dogs are part of the family. It was also expressed that well exercised and well socialised dogs are better behaved, healthier and safer. Proposed policy/bylaw clauses 1. Descriptions / Objectives (policy) Policy section 1 Summary of feedback (2 submitters) One submitter stated support for the policy objectives. Another submitter said that the aims and objectives are in keeping with the Dog Control Act, however also said that the proposed policy does not give enough mention to the ways Council will support responsible ownership and deal with irresponsible owners, or enable owners and dogs to enjoy exercise and recreation (specific to the Mercury Bay/Whitianga area). Staff analysis and recommendation The proposed section is consistent with requirements under the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) relating to the purpose of a policy on dogs, and describes Council's approach to dog control. For even more explicit consistency with the Act and the proposed bylaw wording, the wording of proposed policy clause 1.2(c) could be amended to reference 'the community generally' (relates to corresponding recommendation in section 2 of this report). Also, the second part of proposed clause 1.2(c) starting at 'enable...' could be presented as a separate sub clause 1.2(d). How Council will implement the policy approach is set out in other clauses or is regulated under the Dog Control Act and is not necessary to be duplicated in the policy or bylaw.
Staff recommend amending proposed policy clause 1.2(c) to add the word 'generally' and to separate into two sub clauses, to read: 1.2(c) Minimise potential danger, distress and nuisance to the community generally and to native wildlife. 1.2(d) Enable, to the extent that is practicable, the public to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs. 2. Purpose (bylaw) Bylaw section 2 Summary of feedback (2 submitters) Two submitters commented on the bylaw purpose. One submitter stated support for the proposal. Another submitter said that the words 'and native wildlife' should be added at the end of Section 2.1 of the bylaw to read '...whilst minimising danger, distress, and nuisance to the community and native wildlife'. The reason for this suggested change is to make the bylaw wording more consistent with the wording in policy section 1.2(c). Staff analysis and recommendation Wording of proposed clause 2.1 about the purpose of the bylaw is consistent with wording in the Dog Control Act and summarises the objectives of the policy, given that the policy and bylaw must be consistent and the bylaw implements the policy approach. Wording in the policy specifically mentions 'wildlife' whereas in the bylaw purpose 'wildlife' is captured in reference to 'the community generally' which is consistent with wording in the Dog Control Act. It would be reasonable but not necessary to more explicitly align the wording in the policy and the bylaw. For consistency sake the wording in the bylaw purpose could be amended to explicitly mention 'wildlife'. Staff recommend amending the proposed wording in the bylaw clause 2.1 to reference 'native wildlife' to read: 2.1. This bylaw gives effect to the Council's Dog Control Policy, the objective of which is to enable people to enjoy the benefits of responsible dog ownership and provide for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners, whilst minimising danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally and native wildlife. 3. Nature and application of bylaw (policy) Policy section 2 Summary of feedback (1 submitter) One submitter specifically commented in support. Staff analysis and recommendation Under section 10(3)(a) of the Dog Control Act, Council's policy on dogs must specify the nature and application of any dog control bylaw. The proposed wording is appropriate. 4. Definitions (policy and bylaw) Policy section 3 / bylaw section 6 Summary of feedback (3 submitters) Summarised comments: Fully describe definitions so they stand alone, not referring to other Acts as no one will refer to or read them. The definition for 'holiday weekend' is too much of a generalisation. Specify the applicable weekends. Firm up the definition for 'off leash' to include '' and what this means.
Beach and foreshore definitions are always confusing for the general public, especially where they include areas of sand, pebbles, shingle, dunes or coastal vegetation. Clarify what places are included as 'public places'. The definition is obscure in that it refers to section 2 of the Dog Control Act 1996. The definitions need to be more specific as certain facilities and beaches are privately owned or on shared title. Some dogs are not always exercised by their owners (say, friends, relatives or carers/keepers) and so the policy should recognise this fact in the definitions. Staff analysis and recommendation The proposed definitions reference definitions under higher legislation where available and appropriate to do so. This is considered an appropriate approach for regulatory documents such as the policy and bylaw so to ensure ongoing consistency. To assist public understanding of the rules and for ease of reference, outside of the review process after a final policy and bylaw is adopted supplementary information will be developed that includes full definitions. The proposed definition for 'public place' refers to having the same meaning as defined in the Dog Control Act and therefore should not be amended. The definition relates to use of a place rather than specific ownership. The definition for 'owner' refers to the same meaning as defined in the Dog Control Act, where the definition accounts for people other than the dog's owner who may have the dog in his or her possession for a period of time. No changes are considered necessary. The structure of the proposed definition for 'holiday weekend' meets Council's regulatory needs and is considered generally understood by the public with only one submitter commenting that the definition is ambiguous. However, relevant to the definition is also submitter feedback about area restrictions and which holiday weekends should be included in the set of area rules for certain dates/. Any changes should be reflected in the definition as this is the most appropriate mechanism to specify applicable holiday weekends, and therefore this matter is discussed below. The proposed rule for certain dates and/or includes holiday weekends. The proposed definition for Holiday Weekend includes all public holidays as defined in the Holidays Act 2003, which lists specific public holidays. Some submitters consider that Queens Birthday and Anzac Day public holidays should be excluded from restricted periods as these public holidays are in quieter winter months and reasons for the restrictions (generally health and safety) do not apply to the same extent as public holidays at other of the year. On further assessment it would be reasonable to exclude Queens Birthday and Anzac from the 'holiday weekend' definition. Reasons being that health and safety concerns and protection of wildlife are less of an issue during the applicable months when these two public holidays fall. Further, allowing dogs during these in what would otherwise be restricted areas would better provide for the exercise and recreation needs of dogs and their owners. This would go some way to respond to submitter concerns that there are not enough off leash areas, while remaining within the scope of the review. Staff recommend the definition for 'holiday weekend' be amended to read as set out below, and make no other changes to definitions. Holiday Weekend means any weekend which immediately precedes or follows a public holiday, and includes any public holiday as defined in the Holidays Act 2003, excluding the birthday of the reigning Sovereign (observed on the first Monday in June) and Anzac Day.
5. Education programmes (policy) Policy section 4.1 Summary of feedback (6 submitters) Three submitters made comments on the need to encourage dog owners to be more responsible, educated and aware of the rules. Other submitters said Council needs to do more to educate the public and dog owners on their responsibilities, including around vulnerable bird areas, and suggested communications channels to be used. Coromandel Kiwi Collective said that they would like to work with the Council to deliver education programmes to protect kiwi from dogs. Further, the Collective asked that Council improve advocacy around dog ownership and its corresponding responsibilities in regards to wildlife. Staff analysis and recommendation The proposed policy section on education programmes is intentionally broad to enable a flexible approach to promoting the purposes of the policy and bylaw. This is considered appropriate to ensure ongoing operational consistency with the policy, while enabling the Council to provide and promote relevant education opportunities from time to time in response to community needs and wants with the resources available. 6. Neutering of menacing dogs (policy and bylaw) Policy section 4.2 / bylaw section 12 Summary of feedback (1 submitter) One submitter commented in relation to neutering of menacing dogs. This submitter said "support the requirements as stated" and made further comments that the connection between menacing and neutering is not understood or clearly stated, and suggested capture and impounding needs also be included in this section. Staff analysis and recommendation The proposed policy section on neutering of menacing dogs responds to the requirement in the Dog Control Act to state whether or not the Council requires dogs classified as menacing to be neutered, either when classified by the TCDC or by another council. The proposed sections in both the policy and the bylaw enables the Council to react appropriately by requiring the neutering of dogs which have been deemed menacing following the procedures outlined in the Act. Both the policy and the bylaw provide the Council with some discretion with regards to the breed of dogs classified as menacing. This ensures that dogs which have previously been registered with another territorial authority and then are registered within TCDC with an existing menacing classification due to their breed are not unduly neutered, and brings these breeds in line with the list of breeds in the Act. This is because some territorial authorities, for example Auckland Council, use a list of breeds wider than that in the Act when classifying dogs as menacing by breed but does not require neutering as a result. Therefore, the proposed provision ensures that only those dogs classified because of a menacing action (by deed) or dogs classified as menacing because of their breed as defined in the Act, are neutered. Impounding is a separate clause in the bylaw (addressed below), and provision for capture of dogs is regulated under the Dog Control Act. 7. Impoundment of dogs (bylaw) Bylaw section 14 Summary of feedback (1 submitter) One submitter commented in support of the proposal. The submitter also added that "if Council doesn t want to resource this activity (capture and impounding) itself then it should consider contracting in a service provider to do it".
Staff analysis and recommendation The proposed provision enables the Council to impound dogs and is consistent with the Dog Control Act. How this is managed is an operational matter. 8. Fees and charges (policy and bylaw) Policy section 4.3 / bylaw section 16 Summary of feedback (3 submitters) One submitter stated support for the proposal. Several submitters said that it is important to recognise good dog ownership, and made suggestions about how Council could do this. One submitter said that the Council could encourage responsible ownership with discounted registration for de-sexed dogs. The same submitter also said that Council should recognise the NZ Kennel Clubs Canine Good Citizen programme, saying "it is hard to pass the assessments but makes for great, well behaved dogs". One submitter said to increase dog rangers to improve compliance, and levy dog owners to pay for this with a higher registration charge. Staff analysis and recommendation The proposed fees and charges clauses enable Council to prescribe fees and charges, and set out how it will do this. The Council's fees and charges related to dog control are prescribed in the Dog Control Act, and are generally set annually with the adoption of the Council's annual plans and long term plans. Fees and charges must be 'reasonable' and the Council's fees and charges are comparable with those of other councils. Several councils have programmes or processes for the purpose of encouraging and recognising good dog ownership, for example through decreased fees. The intent of this approach is good in theory, however is costly to put into practice and manage. The Council has previously operated an incentive-type programme for good dog ownership. This was discontinued largely due to cost as such a system required additional administration and enforcement. 'Bad' dog owners generally pay through compliance (infringement) fees. If Council did want to consider re-introducing an approach to recognise good dog ownership then the matter could be investigated further and proposed to the community through a separate process. 9. Department of Conservation land (Policy) Policy section 4.6 Summary of feedback No submissions received specific to this matter. Staff analysis and recommendation The Dog Control Act requires the Council to identify any land within the district that is either a controlled dog area or open dog area under the Conservation Act 1987, or is a national park constituted under the National Parks Act 1980. Council staff have requested this information on multiple occasions from the Department of Conservation (DOC) as the holder of this information and it has not been provided. The proposed wording satisfies the Council's obligation under the Dog Control Act (in the absence of the necessary information) and if DOC does provide the necessary information it can be included via a future review. Some minor wording amendments should be made to reflect the current situation, i.e. no information has been provided by DOC.
Staff recommend amending proposed clause 4.6.2 to read: The Department of Conservation has not formally advised the Council of controlled or open dog areas under Section 26ZS of the Conservation Act 1987 for inclusion in the policy. 10. Areas of dog control in public places (policy) Policy section 4.5 Summary of feedback Relevant submissions have been reflected and discussed elsewhere in this report, for example relating to specific area rules. Due to the required consistency across the policy and the bylaw in regard to area rules, and to minimise duplication in this report, submitter feedback to area rules is discussed in the below section for 'Control of dogs in public places/dog exercise areas/prohibited areas' and more specifically in the area rules section. Staff analysis and recommendation Section 4.5 of the proposed policy sets the basis for the area rules in the policy and the bylaw, consistent with requirements under the Dog Control Act. For consistency any decisions for changes to specific area rules would need to be reflected appropriately in the policy table of areas of dog control under clause 4.5.3. No other changes are necessary to wording in section 4.5 of the proposed policy. Staff recommend amending detail in the policy table at proposed clause 4.5.3 to reflect any changes recommended by the Committee to area rules, as appropriate for consistency across the policy and the bylaw and to meet requirements under the Dog Control Act 1996. 11. Control of dogs in public places / dog exercise areas / prohibited areas (bylaw) Bylaw sections 7, 8 and 9 Summary of feedback (21 submitters) To minimise duplication across this report general feedback (not relating to specific area rules) are discussed in this section, and feedback about specific area rules are discussed in the area rules section. General topics discussed here include: The meaning and interpretation of ''. Whether dogs should be allowed off leash in different types of public places. The responsibility of dog owners. Use of muzzles. Comments clearly indicate that people agree dogs must be at all. Some submitters said that different people take different interpretations of what '' means and that this may need greater clarification. Seven submitters commented about dogs not being when off a leash, or are not always able to be controlled dependent on the circumstances such as environmental or social triggers. Five submitters said that dogs should be on a leash in all public places, and one further submitter said this relating to beaches and beach reserves. One submitter said that the retractable dog leash does not provide adequate control when in a public place such as the CBD. One submitter said that incidents with dogs will usually happen on private property, and there isn't any argument supporting a tightening of dog law restrictions. Three submitters commented about muzzles on dogs. One submitter said Council should promote the use of muzzles for dogs when in forest areas; one submitter said that a list of dangerous dogs should be established that require a muzzle on when outside the owner's property; and one submitter said that no dogs should be muzzled in summer as they need to have their tongues hanging out to release heat from their bodies.
Staff analysis and recommendation Section 7, 8 and 9 of the proposed bylaw set the basis for dog rules specified in the bylaw schedule of area rules and enables those rules to be enforced. The bylaw must be consistent with the policy, yet with more specificity in regard to rules that apply to different areas that are public places. No changes are considered necessary to the wording in proposed sections 7, 8 and 9 of the bylaw as having area rules where dogs are prohibited, must be on leash or permitted off leash is consistent with the policy objectives and purpose of the bylaw. The Dog Control Act includes sufficient provisions for the use of muzzles on dangerous or menacing dogs. 12. Temporary area restrictions Bylaw section 10 Summary of feedback (7 submitters) All submitter feedback was generally supportive of temporary area restrictions and more related to operational matters about how the proposed provisions would be implemented. A summary of comments follows. One submitter said nesting sites should remain off limits and comments that no responsible dog owner would knowingly allow their dog near a fragile area. Five submitters gave a measurement for the distance around nests and/or fenced off areas where dogs should be on leash. Two submitters said 100m, two submitters said 200m (including DOC), and one submitter said 250m. Three of these submitter comments were area specific to Opito Bay, Tapu/Te Mata, and Whangamata Beach. DOC provided images for roped off areas (see submission appendix) and further said that dogs should never be within a roped nesting area and that these interventions are critical for ongoing management of wildlife, and in particular dotterels. Because of this DOC is more acceptable to allowing leniency of dog use in other areas. DOC supports working with TCDC on temporary area restrictions, including with agreed signage. The Coromandel Kiwi Collective said that they would also like to work with TCDC and further define temporary area restrictions, in order to implement appropriate on site warning signage in a coordinated way. The Coromandel Kiwi Collective said that where there are references to protection of wildlife and determining protected bird habitat areas where dogs are to be prohibited for a period of time, this stance should be made specifically for kiwi as well as other birds like the NZ dotterel. Staff analysis and recommendation The feedback received indicates support for including provisions in the bylaw that enable temporary restrictions to be established, which are similar to provisions under the current bylaw. The proposed provisions allow flexibility in specifically where and how the restrictions are applied and implemented, which is intended to provide balance between wildlife protection and providing for the exercise and recreation needs of dogs and their owners. Under the proposal, identifying areas for temporary restrictions and establishing such restrictions would be an operational matter between Council and DOC, as would provision of relevant signage and information to raise awareness with beach users. It is appropriate and feasible to reference that Council would work with DOC regarding temporary area restrictions. Additional stakeholders concerned with the protection of wildlife may work with DOC, but if the provisions for temporary restrictions are to work effectively and efficiently it is not considered feasible to widen the relationship requirements of the Council.
13. Exemptions (bylaw) Bylaw section 11 Summary of feedback (2 submitters) Two submitters commented about exemptions. One submitter said that the policy does not appear to take into account the need to use working or hunting dogs in public areas and indicated that it is not practical to use a lead for moving or chasing stock. One further submitter supported the proposal. Staff analysis and recommendation The Dog Control Act provides exemption for working dogs to be off leash in otherwise on leash areas, and the definition for working dog includes disability assist dogs and dogs kept specifically for the purposes of herding or driving stock (amongst other meanings). This could be clarified in supplementary information after a final policy and bylaw is adopted. The proposed bylaw provides for further exemptions from area rules on a case by case basis by way of a permit system. This would provide for approved dog activities in areas that may otherwise be non-compliant, such as hunting with hunting dogs off leash, or for purposes of group dog training for example where the training may require dogs to be off leash for periods of time in otherwise on leash areas. Exemption by permit would be a consistent approach with DOC that manage a permit system for dogs in controlled DOC areas. Council establishing and managing a permit system would be an operational matter that could be relatively simple but effective. 14. Dogs fouling in public places (bylaw) Bylaw section 13 Summary of feedback (6 submitters) Submitters often commented about dogs fouling in feedback about specific area rules. Six submitters commented more specifically in relation to the proposed requirement for people to remove and dispose of dog faeces in public places, and all comments support the requirement. Staff analysis and recommendation The proposed provisions require the owner or person in possession or control of a dog to pick up after their dog and dispose in an appropriate manner. Enforcement of this rule is an operational matter and outside the scope of this review. 15. Enforcement, offences and penalties (bylaw) Bylaw section 15 Summary of feedback (19 submitters) The majority of submitter feedback related to enforcement, offences and penalties supports enforcement of dog control rules and having consequences for non-compliance. One submitter said that there should be common sense applied to enforcement, and leniency of the leash rules when the owner can give evidence of training. Several submitters provided feedback about operational matters such as level of enforcement and fines. Some this feedback was given in the context of specific area rules. Staff analysis and recommendation The proposed provisions say what is necessary to enable Council to enforce the bylaw and state that a breach of the bylaw is an offence and may incur a penalty. Submitter feedback
supports the need for this sort of approach. Submission comments relating to operational matters are outside the scope of this review. 16. Other comments and out of scope matters Summary of feedback A number of submitters commented on matters outside the scope of the policy and bylaw review such as matters not included in the proposal, operational matters, matters not appropriate or required to be in the policy or bylaw, or not related to dog control. Topics included: Too many dogs in Whitianga and number of dogs allowed. Level of enforcement, fines/penalties, fees and changes. Signs - type and placement of signs, inclusion of maps. Dog dispensers and rubbish bins - general comments that we need more, some specified locations. Administration processes relating to dog ownership including appeals process. Banning dogs at private coastal properties. Require properties with dogs to be fully fenced. Rules for other animals including cats and horses. Staff analysis and recommendation Applying a limit on the number of dogs per dog owner was considered at the time of preparing the proposal but was discarded. It is not able to be re-introduced at this stage and Council's regulatory staff support the proposed position on this matter. There are provisions under the Dog Control Act that enable Council to take actions in response to poor dog ownership or dogs causing a nuisance, e.g. barking. Operational and administrative matters are separate from the policy and bylaw review, while provisions for dogs on private property are largely addressed under the Dog Control Act rather than the policy or bylaw. Rules for other animals are outside scope. Submissions relating to all these matters will be treated as requests for service and put through the appropriate channels. Area Rules District wide - general feedback to area rules and analysis Twenty submitters made general comments about the proposed area rules. This feedback, and that provided to specific areas, generally indicates support for the provision of areas of dog control including prohibited, on leash and off leash areas. Main topics included: The necessity to protect wildlife areas, especially dotterel and kiwi habitats. Consideration to summer populations and actual or potential intimidation by dogs, but also the exercise and recreation needs of dogs and their owners at these. More off leash exercise areas are needed generally, but more so in particular areas. There should be a fenced area in each town. Well exercised and well socialised dogs are better behaved, healthier and safer. Dogs are members of the family and provisions should be made to enable families to enjoy beach time with their dogs within family friendly hours. Three submitters specifically noted support to the district wide rules, while another said to make broad simple rules that are clear and fair for all.
DOC made a general comment to oppose changes in cases where currently dogs are banned from particular beaches between Labour Weekend to 1 March but the proposal changes this to a summer/holiday restriction between 20 December and 31 January. The reason for the opposition is that a longer banned period provides more protection for dotterel. Relating to the last bullet point above, under the proposal the majority of area in the district that is a public place falls into the category of being a public place excluding beaches and not included specifically in the schedule. Therefore the rule of on leash at all would apply to the majority of public places. In recognising the benefits of well exercised dogs through this review the Judicial Committee may identify that more off leash areas are required. If this is the case, in order to stay in scope, work could be undertaken through a separate process to identify further suitable off leash areas and seek community feedback via consultation. A separate process would help ensure legislative requirements are met in terms of significance of decisions and impact on the community. Given that dog rules are often controversial and can have serious implications, particularly areas where dogs may be off leash, awareness needs to be raised in the community to potential changes before those changes are made. Community Boards should have a role in identifying suitable off leash areas, however, the complete task should not be delegated as there must be oversight and management to ensure that legislative requirements are met. Fencing off leash areas is a decision that can be made locally by Community Boards. There is no decision to make here as specific matters for decisions are addressed below. 17. District wide - area rules framework This section discusses the area rules framework (range of area rules) proposed and general feedback received. There are two general groups of area rules that form the proposed area rules framework - three sets of rules for (left half of the table below); and two sets of rules for certain dates and/or certain (right half of the table below). It is considered necessary and beneficial to set a framework for area rules that can then be applied on a local area by area basis. Submission feedback to the application of these rules to specific areas is discussed within the area schedule on subsequent pages. What we proposed Rules Prohibited at all dates and Rules at certain dates and/or certain From Labour From 20 December to Weekend to 31 January and all holiday (inclusive) 9am and 6pm (inclusive) Summary of feedback Rules Submitter feedback about proposed rules (left half of the table above) has largely been discussed under earlier sections 'Areas of dog control in public places (policy)' and 'Control of dogs in public places / dog exercise areas / prohibited areas (bylaw)'. For example, a small number of submitters made comments such as dogs should be on leash at all in all public places. The overall nature of comments indicates that most submitters agree with the proposed range of rules for and rather provide feedback about how the rules have been proposed to apply, or not, to specific areas.
Rules at certain dates and/or certain Common topics raised in submissions about the proposed rules that may be applied at certain dates and/or certain include: District wide consistency or not. Specified dates/. District wide consistency or not Four submitters explicitly noted support to the approach of district wide consistency, generally because it would make the rules less complicated and confusing. Further submitters commented in support of district wide consistency when questioned at the hearing. Some submitters would prefer flexibility to vary date/time restrictions locally. Relevant submitter feedback is generally captured in the summary of feedback to specific area rules. One submitter said in general that all areas should have their own rules that reflect the many varied uses of the particular area. Specified dates/ There was good submitter support to the proposed date/time restrictions, and also several submitters who said they want no change from the status quo and others suggested alternative date and/or time restrictions. A small number of submitters suggested only having one set of date/time restrictions instead of two (for example, either 'From Labour Weekend to 1 March' or 'From 20 December to 31 January'). Many submitters gave feedback on date/time restrictions in relation to specific areas. Submitter reasons for preferring particular date/time restrictions were generally consistent with protection of wildlife, beaches being popular places for people in summer and holiday weekends, and the importance of allowing time for dog exercise including consideration to family commitments. The dates and elements are discussed separately below. Submitters offered various suggestions for restriction dates, generally between a start date of 1 August and an end date of 30 April. The extent of the restricted period reflects concern expressed by a few submitters that dotterel some breed/nest earlier or later than usual. Submitter feedback indicates general support to the proposal that restrictions for protection of wildlife be inclusive of all in the specified dates period. The proposed set of area rules for certain dates and/or certain (far right in the table above) are mainly for the purpose of health and safety at high population and submitters offered various suggestions for restriction generally between a start time of 8am and an end time of 7pm. Mercury Bay and Whangamata submitters have, in general, notably different preferences. Submissions to several local areas in Mercury Bay generally favour less restrictive, mainly wanting 10am to 4pm or 5pm; while for Whangamata Beach submission feedback is generally supportive of more restrictive than in the proposal, mainly wanting 9am to 7pm. Submissions to specific areas in other community boards indicate general support to the proposed of 9am to 6pm. Some submitters across all community board areas noted a preference for the status quo. The proposed restriction for date and time restrictions (far right rule in the table above) includes holiday weekends. Which holiday weekends are included in the restriction has been addressed in the early report section on 'Definitions'. Staff analysis and recommendation Analysis relating to the two groups of area rules in the proposed area rules framework are discussed below and broken down as appropriate for discussion and decision.
17.1. Area rules Providing a range of area rules that includes prohibited, on leash and off leash that may be applied enables Council to meet responsibilities under the Dog Control Act when it comes to balancing health and safety needs of the community generally, and providing for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners. Having a range of area rules that include rules that would apply is considered necessary and appropriate. The nature of feedback received indicates that submitters agree with this general approach and are more concerned about the specifics of the rules and how they are applied to certain areas. Staff recommend no changes to the proposed range of area rules that may be applied on an area by area basis for. 17.2. Area rules at certain dates and/or certain Relating to the framework of area rules, there is no clear submitter agreement whether or not to have district-wide consistency and to what degree. District wide consistency provides simplicity and assists understanding of, and therefore compliance with, the area rules particularly by visitors who may move around the district. Having local variance may better reflect the needs and wants of local communities, particularly of residents who may not benefit personally from district wide consistency and this may lead to deliberate noncompliance with the area rules. The range of area rules proposed provides some compromise between the two viewpoints of district wide consistency and local variance, with two sets of rules that may be applied at certain dates and/or certain. Having two such sets of rules also reflects the main reasons for these types of rules, being to (1) protect wildlife, such as dotterel, during the breeding/nesting period; (2) health and safety during summer when the population of people and dogs in the district increases significantly; and (3) provide for the exercise and recreation needs of dogs and their owners. These reasons were supported in submissions and having two sets of rules for certain dates/ is still considered appropriate to best deliver on the objectives of the policy and bylaw and cater for different community expectations. For comparison, the current bylaw includes several date and time restrictions that can be confusing due to the way the rules are set out in the bylaw, and the variations including: At all between the Saturday of Labour Weekend and 1 March. Between 9am and 7pm from Labour Weekend to 8 February. Between 9am and 7pm from 15 December to 8 February and between 9am and 4pm on other holiday weekends. It is not considered necessary to have more than two sets of area rules for certain dates and/or certain in order to minimise complexity and potential for confusion. Staff recommend no changes to the approach of providing two sets of area rules that may be applied at certain dates and/or certain. The specifics of the proposed area rules are discussed further below as the basis for any changes. 17.2.1. Proposed rule: Labour weekend to 1 March at all (inclusive) The main purpose of this set of rules is to provide protection for wildlife, particularly seabirds including dotterel, over the main breeding/nesting period. The proposed restriction timeframe covers the main breeding/nesting period and when the birds would be most vulnerable to dogs, and has clear start and end points that are considered relatively easy to remember. Pre-consultation discussions with DOC helped to identify areas that would be appropriate for this rule to apply. Staff recommend no changes to this proposed rule for Labour Weekend to 1 March.
17.2.2. Proposed rule: 20 December to 31 January and all holiday weekends between 9am 6pm The main purpose of the summer/holiday rule is for health and safety for people over the busy summer period and includes both date and time elements. It could be considered the most controversial rule, particularly due to the element. The proposed restriction dates and did receive fairly good support from submitters, however it is clear that it is not going to be possible to meet all needs and wants across the district as a whole and in each local area. Restriction dates The proposed restriction dates of 20 December to 31 January covers the peak summer period and immediate shoulders. When considered alongside the more restrictive rule that covers Labour Weekend to 1 March, it provides a good balance of shorter and longer restrictions that may be applied dependent on area specific issues. Feedback from Council's compliance officers strongly support this timeframe (20 December to 31 January) as outside the specified dates the population in areas decreases significantly, even despite the short week before Waitangi Weekend. Under the current bylaw many areas have date and time restrictions that extend to 8 February and this is considered too long. Restriction The aspect of is where submitter preference for local variance is most notable across the district. If district wide consistency is determined the most appropriate approach to recommend, for a compromise position the summer/holiday set of rules could be 9am to 6pm as proposed. Another feasible option could be the general status quo hours of 9am to 7pm however this would go no way to recognise preferences of submitters who want reduced restriction, particularly in the Mercury Bay area. Local variance in hours, such as at community board level or even lower settlement level, could better cater for local needs and wants. Local variance in hours can be managed from an enforcement perspective by Council s regulatory staff however would be more challenging compared to consistency district wide. A compromise could be a basis of consistency (suggest 9am to 6pm), with exceptions for specific local communities where there is strong submitter support for variance. There are two such communities that have been identified - Kuaotunu (10am to 5pm) and Whangamata (9am to 7pm). Reasons for these two exceptions are discussed further below. At the Hearing on 11 February 2016 Council received a petition with 313 signatures requesting that "dogs, under their owners' control, have full access to Matarangi (excluding 'the Spit'), Kuaotunu East and West Beaches at all with the following exception - 20 th December to 31 st January, from 10am until 5pm". Petitioners include people with addresses mainly in Kuaotunu or Matarangi. On further assessment, staff consider that Kuaotunu is different in nature than Matarangi. For example Kuaotunu is a relatively small and remote community with a fairly steady small permanent population and more reduced restriction hours may be reasonable. Relevant background supporting this is an earlier petition several years ago on this matter signed by 437 residents, ratepayers and visitors requesting that dog exercise time restrictions at Kuaotunu be amended (reduced). While Matarangi has similarities, it is a very popular holiday destination and the population increases significantly in summer. More reduced dog restrictions in Matarangi is not considered appropriate for health and safety reasons. Area rules for Kuaotunu and Matarangi are discussed more specifically in the schedule of area rules section below. A pro forma submission was received about areas rules for Whangamata Beach, which was supported by 53 submitters with a few more submitters agreeing with particular parts. A key point of the pro forma submission was requesting restriction hours of 9am - 7pm (continuing the status quo). Submitters' reasons mainly relate to health and safety concerns and that the population profile in Whangamata changes significantly over summer with many families and children using the beach. While these reasons are good, the nature of Whangamata as
a holiday destination is not unique and other settlements in the district also experience significant temporary population growth over the summer period and holiday weekends. Further, as raised by a number of submitters, many families bring their dog on holiday and want to be able to enjoy beach time during the day with their dog as part of the family. Submitters suggest that 7pm is too late to enable this. Area rules for different parts of Whangamata Beach are discussed more specifically in the area rules section below. Despite some submitter support for variance in hours, generally district wide consistency is still considered the most appropriate approach. Staff recommend amending the summer and holiday rule to delete the word "all" from the reference to holiday weekends, and otherwise make no changes.
18. Specific area rules Schedule 1: Area Rules by District Wide and Community Board DISTRICT WIDE Rules All beaches and parts of beaches, excluding areas described elsewhere in this schedule Summary of feedback received (22 submitters): Twenty two submitters commented about rules for beaches in general (area specific submissions are discussed per community board area). Submitter views included: Dogs should be banned from beaches. Dogs should only be permitted on beaches if on leash. Dogs should be allowed on beaches off leash, if. Where beaches and reserves are adjacent the same rules should apply. There should be at least one beach per area that is off leash at all. Consider partitioning beaches so part of the beach is dog friendly and the other part is dog free. This could work better for people and birds than restrictions for dates/. There should be consistent and simplistic rules for beaches. Most comments relate to one or more of the following: beaches are good dog exercise areas and part of enjoying the Coromandel; most dog owners are responsible; having dogs on beaches is a problem due to health and safety reasons (dog poo, not, intimidating for some people); beaches are playgrounds; dogs are a danger to wildlife, particularly off leash. All public places excluding beaches and excluding other On leash public places described elsewhere in this schedule Summary of feedback received (16 submitters): Sixteen submitters made comments about public places that are not beaches and are not described separately in the area schedule. Topics raised include rules for: Main streets / CBD areas. Parks and reserves. Rural roads/areas. Rivers / fresh water areas. Off leash Rules at certain dates and/or certain (inclusive) 9am and 6pm (inclusive) A starting point for beaches being off leash but contributes to the objective of providing for the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners. Additional rules are applied on an area by area basis in response to issues such as concern for health and safety at high population and protection of wildlife. This general approach is still considered appropriate. A starting point of dogs on leash is consistent with the objective to minimise potential danger, distress and nuisance to the community. It provides a base level of control that is easily measurable. Rules are then applied on an area by area basis dependent on the nature/issues relevant to the area. This approach is still considered appropriate.
Rules Main streets / CBD areas Nine submitters commented about rules for main streets / CBD areas. Six consider dogs should be prohibited, while three agree with the on leash proposal (one saying 'after business hours and on the weekends'). Of the nine submissions, one is specific to Port Road in Whangamata (dogs should be prohibited), and four refer to Pollen Street in Thames (two want dogs prohibited, two support dogs on leash). The other submissions on this topic do not specify an area. Reasons for prohibiting dogs relate to health and safety (particularly for elderly and disabled people) and dogs fouling. Reasons for supporting an on leash rule include that other areas outside the district allow it and it isn't a problem, it is a deterrent for visitors and unpopular with locals, dogs left in a car unattended can be unsafe and at home can cause a nuisance. Reserves Six submitters commented about rules for reserves in general. Further submitters commented in relation to specific areas. General comments included: Dogs should on leash on beach reserves. Dogs should be on leash at all on all public reserves, reason being to minimise the risk of harm. Dogs should not be allowed off leash in bush reserves and on walking tracks, reason being to protect wildlife. Where beaches and reserves are adjacent the same rules should apply (further submitters made similar comments specific to areas). Dogs should be allowed off leash on reserves, if the dog is obedient and there is no one else on the reserve. Surely there are other parks and reserves that could be off leash. Rural roads/areas Two submitters commented that dogs should be allowed off leash in rural areas: One submitter stated "allow dogs to be exercised off leash on rural roads, provided that they are ". The submitter said that this happens on some less-used rural roads and it has never been problematic in 20 years' experience, and it would seem sensible to be permitted. Another submitter said that it seems unreasonable not to allow owners to walk dogs off lead Rules at certain dates and/or certain (inclusive) 9am and 6pm (inclusive) To further respond to points raised in submissions: Main streets / CBD areas: The proposal for all main streets to be on leash areas removes current inconsistency across the district, and reflects a position that dogs on leash is a reasonable control for health and safety and encourages compliance as there are reasonable reasons to some have dogs on the main streets (e.g. to take to the vet or for general access and exercise). Main streets are often busy places without much room to move, and dogs can potentially cause health and safety issues. Requirements under the Dog Control Act for responsible dog ownership apply, as do rules under the policy and bylaw. Addressing non-compliance is an operational matter. Parks and Reserves: Reserves are usually available for recreational purposes and can be popular places. Under the proposal reserves are treated differently to beaches and are on leash areas as a starting point, with exceptions specified. This recognises that issues relevant to beaches often do not apply, or apply but to a lesser degree, to reserves including those adjacent to beaches and treating these general areas differently enables appropriate rules to be applied more specifically. An on leash starting point for reserves enables people to access and exercise dogs alongside the beach without going onto the beach where restrictions may apply. Rural roads/areas: The on leash starting point means that by default, in much rural area of the district that are public places dogs are required to be on leash. This is generally the status quo and is still considered appropriate from a health and safety