Report
TO: Strategy
& Finance Committee
MEETING DATE: 28
May 2025
TITLE: Options
to amend off-leash dog controls at Linklater Reserve
PRESENTED BY: Stacey
Solomon, Policy Analyst
APPROVED BY: David
Murphy, General Manager Strategic Planning
RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Strategy & Finance Committee
1. That the
Committee determine the current off-leash controls at Linklater Reserve are appropriate,
and that no changes for on-leash controls are required to be made to the Dog
Control Policy or the Dog Control Bylaw [OPTION 1].
OR
2. That the
Committee determine that changes are required to the Dog Control Policy
and the Dog Control Bylaw to create an on-leash area at Linklater Reserve, and
adopt the Statement of Proposal with its preferred Option for consultation
with the community.
a. OPTION 2:
Change the current controls and make the area at Linklater Reserve from the
carpark on Kelvin Grove Road over the rise to the planted gully on-leash. The
children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be prohibited to dogs
entirely.
b. OPTION 3: Change
the current controls so that dogs are on-leash at Linklater Reserve around most
of the children’s play spaces and equipment, not including the wetlands
area which remains off-leash along with the rest of the Reserve. The
children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be prohibited to dogs
entirely.
c. OPTION 4:
Change the current controls so that dogs are on-leash at Linklater Reserve
around most of the children’s play spaces and equipment, with the
remainder of the Reserve being off-leash. The children’s play spaces and
equipment continue to be prohibited to dogs entirely.
d. OPTION 5:
Change the current controls and make half of Linklater Reserve [up to the
airplane] on-leash, with half of the Reserve remaining off-leash. The
children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be prohibited to dogs
entirely.
e. OPTION 6:
Change the current controls and make three quarters of Linklater Reserve
on-leash. Dogs would be permitted off-leash in the area of the reserve in the
top right, accessed primarily from the Roberts Line carpark. The
children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be prohibited to dogs
entirely.
OR
3. That the
Committee determine that the current off-leash controls at Linklater Reserve
are appropriate and that no changes are required to the Dog Control Policy or
the Dog Control Bylaw, and explore other non-regulatory, educational, and
signage options to improve the safety concerns of Reserve users [OPTION 7].
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS ANALYSIS FOR AMENDING OFF-LEASH DOG
CONTROLS AT LINKLATER RESERVE, KELVIN GROVE.
|
Problem
or Opportunity
|
Community engagement has been
completed with 1,118 responses received to inform the decision of the
Committee on options to make changes to the off-leash dog controls at
Linklater Reserve in Kelvin Grove.
Options have been provided to the
Committee to consider, and to confirm its preferred next steps for either
amending or not amending the off-leash dog controls at Linklater Reserve.
|
|
OPTION 1:
|
Not make changes to the
off-leash controls at Linklater Reserve, and retain the current controls so
that all of the Reserve is off-leash, apart from the children’s play
spaces and equipment which are prohibited to dogs entirely.
|
|
Community Views
|
Feedback has been mixed, though the majority do not
support making a change to the current off-leash controls.
|
|
Benefits
|
Option 1 stops this process here, and is responsive to the
majority of community feedback.
|
|
Risks
|
There is likely to be some dissatisfaction from the
community who have asked for the controls at Linklater Reserve to be changed.
The safety issues which have been identified are not likely to be resolved
through this Option.
|
|
Financial
|
There are no financial implications for Option 1, as the
Council will continue with its current levels of service.
|
|
OPTION 2:
|
Change the current controls
and make the area at Linklater Reserve from the carpark on Kelvin Grove Road
over the rise to the planted gully on-leash. The children’s play
spaces and equipment continue to be prohibited to dogs entirely.
|
|
Community Views
|
A minority of respondents supported making areas of
Linklater Reserve on-leash.
|
|
Benefits
|
Option 2 makes the area of the Reserve
near entranceways, which has been identified as being high-risk and therefore
more likely to create safety issues, on-leash. Some of the
children’s play equipment is also captured in the on-leash areas with
Option 2.
|
|
Risks
|
This Option offers a limited change to on-leash.
Option 2 may not meet the expectations of those who want areas of the Reserve
to be made on-leash, so that they can enjoy more of the amenities [such as
the walking tracks] in the Reserve free from off-leash dogs.
|
|
Financial
|
Option 2 is likely to incur costs of around $16,000 [excl.
GST] for construction of an internal fence, which is within current
budgets.
|
|
OPTION 3:
|
Change the current controls so that dogs are on-leash
at Linklater Reserve around most of the children’s play spaces and
equipment, not including the wetlands area which remains off-leash along with
the rest of the Reserve. The children’s play spaces and equipment
continue to be prohibited to dogs entirely.
|
|
Community Views
|
Community feedback generally agrees making the areas of
highest risk – those nearest the entranceways and the children’s
play spaces - on leash areas.
|
|
Benefits
|
Option 3 builds on Option 2 but does not
go as far as Option 4 by including more of the children’s play
equipment in the on-leash area, and excluding the wetlands which was
identified through community feedback as a preferred dogs off-leash space.
|
|
Risks
|
The risks for Option 3 are the same as the risks for
Option 2 – the suggested controls may be too much for some, and not
enough for others.
|
|
Financial
|
Option 3 is likely to incur costs of around $32,000 [excl.
GST] for construction of an internal fence, which is slightly outside of
current budgets.
|
|
OPTION 4:
|
Change the current controls so
that dogs are on-leash at Linklater Reserve around most of the
children’s play spaces and equipment, with the remainder of the Reserve
being off-leash. The children’s play spaces and equipment
continue to be prohibited to dogs entirely.
|
|
Community Views
|
Community views have been sought through an engagement
process. Agreement was reached across all feedback that the children’s
play spaces and play equipment should be free from the possibility of
uncontrolled off-leash dogs posing safety risks to the community.
|
|
Benefits
|
Option 4 makes a good portion of the
Reserve on-leash, while leaving a significant amount off-leash.
The dog agility equipment is not captured
in the on-leash area with this option, so will not require additional
fencing, or to be moved into an off-leash space.
|
|
Risks
|
The risks for Option 4 are the same as the risks for
Options 2 and 3 – the suggested controls may be too much for some, and
not enough for others.
|
|
Financial
|
Option 4 is likely to incur costs of around $20,000 [excl.
GST] for construction of an internal fence, which is within current
budgets.
|
|
OPTION 5:
|
Change the current controls and make half of Linklater
Reserve [up to the airplane] on-leash, with half of the Reserve being
off-leash. The children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be
prohibited to dogs entirely.
|
|
Community Views
|
Feedback has been mixed, though the majority do not
support making a change to the current off-leash controls A minority of
respondents supported making areas of Linklater Reserve on-leash.
|
|
Benefits
|
Option 5 is the most balanced in terms of
sharing the Reserve space between the different activities that can occur
there. Dogs can still be exercised off-leash, and people who do not use the
Reserve because of safety concerns from off-leash and uncontrolled or
aggressive dogs may choose to do so in future. This could improve community
connection and more varied use of the Reserve for recreation activities,
other than dog exercise.
|
|
Risks
|
There is a risk that not all the community agrees with the
changed controls, and that they do not follow the new rules. There is also
reputational risk for the Council if it is thought to be making changes which
are not supported by the majority of the community. These risks apply to any
Option where a change to include an on-leash control area at Linklater
Reserve is made.
|
|
Financial
|
Option 5 is likely to incur costs of around $62,000 [excl.
GST] for an internal fence and extension to the current walkways. This
is the most expensive of the Options involving a change to controls and would
require some unbudgeted expenditure.
|
|
OPTION 6:
|
Change the current controls and make three quarters of
Linklater Reserve on-leash. Dogs would be permitted off-leash in the
area of the reserve in the top right, accessed primarily from the Roberts
Line carpark. The children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be
prohibited to dogs entirely.
|
|
Community Views
|
Feedback has been mixed, though the majority do not
support making a change to the current off-leash controls A minority of
respondents supported making areas of Linklater Reserve on-leash.
|
|
Benefits
|
Option 6 would be responsive to those who
prefer that Linklater Reserve not be primarily for off-leash dog exercise and
socialisation and is more for general recreation activity.
|
|
Risks
|
The majority of feedback did not support making any
changes to the off-leash controls – community dissatisfaction [and
therefore reputational risk] is higher with Option 6 than with Options 2, 3,
4, or 5. Option 6 makes a significant reduction to the
fenced off-leash dog exercise options in the city.
|
|
Financial
|
Option 6 is likely to incur costs of around $40,000 [excl.
GST] for internal fencing and additional walkway construction. Option 6 would
require some unbudgeted expenditure.
|
|
OPTION 7:
|
Not make changes to the current controls at Linklater
Reserve, and explore other non-regulatory, educational, and signage options
to improve safety concerns of Reserve users.
|
|
Community Views
|
Option 7 supports the views of people who do not want to
see a change to the off-leash controls and have made alternative suggestions
to achieve the outcomes sought by making a change to the off-leash
controls.
|
|
Benefits
|
Responds to
those who do and those who do not support changes to the controls at
Linklater Reserve, based on the identified issue of safety concerns from
uncontrolled or aggressive dogs. This option may encourage good dog
ownership, which includes regularly exercising dogs and proactive
socialisation of dogs, through continued provision of off-leash dog areas
where this can take place.
Responsible
ownership will generally have good outcomes across the whole of the City, not
just at Linklater Reserve.
|
|
Risks
|
This Option does not directly address the
key issue raised by the Kelvin Grove Community Association – which is
people not following the current controls, creating a situation where people
feel unsafe from exposure to dog aggression or dog attacks.
There is therefore risk of dissatisfaction from the community who have asked
for the controls at Linklater Reserve to be changed to correct this.
Further, there is no guarantee that
non-regulatory interventions will be effective at reducing the safety issues
experienced at Linklater Reserve.
|
|
Financial
|
The financial implications associated with Option 6 will
depend on the types of interventions that the Council chooses to pursue.
If services additional to current provision are required
– such as a dedicated Officer specifically for monitoring Linklater
Reserve or to providing a higher level of service for engagement or education
on dog owner responsibilities and dog control - additional budget and
resourcing would be required to give effect to a change in the level of
service. Similarly, if an option such as the installation of CCTV were
preferred, this would likely incur additional costs.
|
Rationale for the recommendations
1. Overview of the problem or opportunity
1.1 In
January 2024, Palmerston North City Council [the Council] consulted with the
community as part of the review of the Palmerston North Dog Control Policy 2024
[the Policy] and the Palmerston North Dog Control Bylaw 2024 [the Bylaw]. The
Council received a submission from the Kelvin Grove Community Association
[KGCA] to the Policy review requesting that the off-leash dog controls at
Linklater Reserve be restricted to an area at the back of reserve accessed via
Roberts Line. Under the previous and the current Dog Control Policy the
entirety of Linklater Reserve is an off-leash dog control area, apart from the
children’s play spaces and play equipment, which are prohibited to
dogs.
1.2 The
reason for the request was that there are some dogs which are uncontrolled in
the Reserve, and this negatively affects the fair use, enjoyment, and safety of
the park for the community at large. As stated in the KGCA’s submission
to the Dog Control Policy review:
“Due
to frequent attacks by off-leash dogs at Linklater Reserve, Kelvin Grove
Community Association request that Clause 20(1) of the Dog Control Policy is
amended so that the dog exercise areas at Linklater Reserve be restricted to a
limited areas of the park rather than the whole park.”[1]
1.3 In
response to the KGCA submission, the Committee resolved to receive further
advice on whether a change to the controls was needed at the Reserve to address
the stated issues, informed by a community engagement process. The resolution
was:
26-24 That the Chief Executive engage with the
community around the option of designating part of Linklater Park as
dog-on-lead, and report back to the Strategy & Finance Committee.[2]
1.4 This
report responds to that resolution.
1.5 Should
the determination be made to change the off-leash controls at Linklater
Reserve, the Council will be required to amend its Policy and Bylaw by using
the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s.83 of the Local Government Act
2002 [LGA], as required in s.10(2) and s.10(8) of the Dog Control Act.
1.6 If
the Committee does determine that a change to the Controls at Linklater Reserve
is appropriate, a Statement of Proposal has been appended to this report for
the Committee to adopt and consult with the community on.
1.7 The
Statement of Proposal also includes a minor update to one of our clauses in the
Bylaw (20.2) related to issuing of notices which has been identified since the
last review, and needs to be changed to align with the Dog Control Act.
2. Background and previous council decisions
2.1 Linklater
Reserve in Kelvin Grove is one of
the largest single site parks in Palmerston North, at 20.3 hectares. The land
for the Reserve was purchased by the Council in 1995, to add more space to the
city for general recreation activities. The Reserve includes a number of
recreation features, including children’s play equipment and spaces, bike
jumps, BBQs, wetland areas, and several kilometres of walkways. An airways
radar/beacon sits at the back of the Reserve, on the boundary. In 2011, the
review of the Dog Control Policy at that time made the Reserve an off-leash dog
exercise area. In Palmerston North, there are 9,735 dogs, with a number
of off-leash ‘exercise areas’ across the city. Linklater
Reserve is the largest dog exercise area in Palmerston North.
Current dog controls at Linklater Reserve
2.2 The
Dog Control Act requires the Council to adopt a Policy on dogs which, among
other things, identifies the places within the district where dogs may be
exercised at large [‘at large’ meaning off-leash], and designating
those areas as such through its Dog Control Bylaw [s. 10(3)(e)].
2.3 When
establishing off-leash exercise areas and adopting its policy for dog control,
the Council has regard to:
§ The need to minimise danger,
distress and nuisance to the community generally; and
§ The need to avoid the
inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places
that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by
adults; and
§ The importance of enabling,
to the extent that is practicable, the public [including families] to use
streets and public amenities without the fear of attack or intimidation by
dogs; and
§ The exercise and recreation
needs of dogs and their owners [s.10(4)(a-d)].
2.4 The
Dog Control Map, which shows every control area set out in the Policy across
Palmerston North, can be viewed on the Council website.
2.5 The
controls that apply to Linklater Reserve are set out in the Dog Control Policy
and Bylaw. They are:
§ That dogs can be off-leash anywhere
in the Reserve except for in the carpark where they must be on-leash;
§ That dogs must be at least 30
metres away from the children’s playground and play equipment;
§ That dogs are kept under control
[that they return to their owner when called] and do not stray onto properties
neighbouring the Reserve;
§ That the owner of the dog carries a
leash and a dog waste bag at all times;
§ That the dog not be left unattended
at any time; and
§ That the owner of the dog follows
all instructional signage in the area.
3. Community engagement
3.1 Community
engagement has been completed to assist the Committee in its decision
making. People were invited to provide feedback through a variety of
mechanisms, which are described in more detail in section 8 of this
report.
3.2 The
Council received 1,118 responses to engagement; with 1,114 responses received
via the online feedback form, two responses via email, and two responses
through the post. A series of broad questions were asked using the feedback
form to provide a wider understanding of what people were using Linklater
Reserve for and why, as well as the narrower question of whether they would
support a change to the off-leash controls there.
Feedback response
3.3 Most
respondents do not support making changes to the off-leash controls at
Linklater Reserve [Figure 1] .
Figure 1
3.4 Those
who did not support making changes to the off-leash controls cited various
reasons, with recurring themes being:
§ The Reserve is meant for
dogs, other off-leash areas are not as safe or are contained [fenced] in the
same way
§ Most dogs are well behaved
and are kept under control
§ Respondents have not
experienced or seen any aggressive dogs or dog attacks while using Linklater
Reserve
§ Most people at the Reserve
are with a dog that they want to exercise off-leash
§ Linklater Reserve is one of
the few places in Palmerston North where dog owners can take their dog to be
exercised and socialised off-leash
§ A small number of people
complaining about a small number of poorly behaved dogs should not ruin the
Reserve for all other users who are following the rules
§ If people do not want to
encounter off-leash dogs, they should utilise one of the many other reserves
around the city where dogs are on-leash or are prohibited from being
§ The rules are not the issue,
people not following the rules is the issue
3.5 Themes
from those who were unsure of whether they would support a change to the
off-leash controls at Linklater Reserve include:
§ It would depend on how-much
of the Reserve would be made on-leash
§ Most people are responsible
dog owners
§ It is important dogs have
free space to run around
§ They have never had a bad
experience with aggressive dogs, but know of others who have
§ How would a change in rules
be monitored? And, if you cannot monitor the rules, why bother changing them?
§ If
people do not follow the rules now, why would they follow different rules?
3.6 Those
who answered that they wanted to see parts of Linklater Reserve be made
on-leash were asked a follow up question about the extent of the change they
hoped to see [Figure 2] – this question was multiple choice and select
all that apply. Most respondents indicated that, at a minimum, the area closest
to the Kelvin Grove Road carpark near the entranceway, over the top of the rise
to the planted gully, should be on leash. Four respondents asked that the whole
Reserve be made on-leash. Themes from the feedback of those who do support
making parts of Linklater Reserve on-leash include:
§ They do not feel safe at the
Reserve with off-leash dogs
§ People have not properly
trained their dogs to respond to their calls
§ The Reserve was never meant
to be just for dogs
§ Bad experiences of poorly
behaved or aggressive dogs
§ There is plenty of space at
the Reserve for parts of it to be made on-leash, and for parts to still be
off-leash
Figure 2
3.7 The
majority of those who filled out the feedback form were dog owners [Figure 3].
Those who responded that they were dog-owners were then asked two follow-up
questions about whether they took their dog to Linklater Reserve [Figure 4],
and if they had their dog off-leash at the Reserve [Figure 5].
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
3.8 All
respondents to the feedback form were asked if they were a Kelvin Grove local
[Figure 6], how often they used the Reserve [Figure 7], and what they liked to do
there [Figure 8].
3.9 Of
the total responses, 86% of Reserve users stated they were from the
Palmerston North area – with slightly more being from the wider city than
locally from Kelvin Grove - with 151 or 14% of respondents stating they travel
from outside of the city to Palmerston North specifically to use the
Reserve.
Figure 6
3.10 The
majority of respondents use the Reserve on a weekly basis [Figure 7], with 82%
of all respondents using the Reserve at least once a month.
Figure 7
3.11 The
question “What do you like to do at Linklater Reserve?” was
multiple choice, and choose as many as apply [Figure 8]. The most popular
reason given was to socialise and exercise their dog. Many indicated they went
to Linklater Reserve to participate in more than one type of activity, with 138
respondents stating that they were going to Linklater Reserve for only one type
of activity e.g: only going to use the children’s play equipment, or only
going for the walking trails. The “something else” option included
responses such as:
§ Exercise
§ Coffee or lunch at the park
with friends while the dog runs around
§ Playing Pokemon Go
Figure 8
Overall themes from engagement feedback
3.12 A number
of themes were strongly represented across all responses, where agreement was
reached between those who do not, those who do, and those who were unsure of
whether they would support a change to off-leash controls. Those themes
include:
§ Linklater Reserve is an asset
to the community
§ Linklater Reserve is their
preferred reserve in the City
§ Safety of people and of dogs
at Linklater Reserve is imperative
§ It is especially important
that young people and vulnerable people be able to use the Reserve safely,
particularly in the BBQ area and the children’s play equipment
§ All dogs should be kept under
control, this is the responsibility of the owner
§ All rules should be followed,
whether you have a dog or not
§ Enforceability of rules is
important
§ More
dog owner education and training should be made available
Facebook response
3.13 A
post was made to Council’s Facebook page with brief information on
the engagement, directing people to the feedback form on the website. The
Facebook post included an opportunity for Facebook users to respond to the
Council’s engagement directly on the platform via a poll [Figure 9].
3.14 That poll
had the Yes/No question “Should parts of Linklater be made on leash
areas?”, which attracted 1,613 votes, 240 comments, 25 reactions and 14
shares. The poll returned a result of 44% in favour of making parts of
Linklater Reserve on-leash areas, and 56% not in favour of making parts of
Linklater Reserve on-leash areas.
Figure 9
3.15 Responses
on Facebook from the community were varied, with a mix of support and
non-support for possible changes [Figure 10]. Commenters shared personal
experiences or anecdotes to explain their reasons why they do or do not use the
Reserve [with or without a dog], as well as several suggested improvements for
the Reserve generally. Examples of Facebook comments are given below:
Figure 10
4. Description and analysis of options
4.1 The
Committee should consider the following options. Off-leash areas are indicated
in green, and on-leash in areas in red for each of the Options in the maps
below. An option which would make the entirety of Linklater Reserve
on-leash [i.e. reversing the current controls completely] which was raised in
engagement feedback, has not been considered in this analysis.
4.2 OPTION
1: Not make changes to the off-leash controls at Linklater Reserve, and
retain the current controls so that all of the Reserve is off-leash, apart from
the children’s play spaces and equipment which are prohibited to dogs.
Figure 11
4.3 This
is the Option that the Committee should choose if it decides not to change the
controls at Linklater Reserve. Option 1 stops this process here, and the
Council will continue to administer its current dog controls and levels of
service at Linklater Reserve.
Advantages of Option 1
4.4 Option
1 has advantages. This Option supports the preference of the majority of
respondents by retaining the current off-leash rules for the entire Reserve.
Therefore, this Option does not support those who have indicated support for
making areas of the Reserve on-leash [see discussion in paragraphs 3.5, 3.6,
and 3.7 for reasons given by respondents for their preferred
approach].
Disadvantages of Option 1
4.5 Option
1 does not respond to the request of the KGCA, or to those who have indicated
that they support making a change to the off-leash controls in at least some
areas of Linklater Reserve. As there is general agreement that improvements
could be made to the safety of Reserve users, Option 1 would mean an opportunity
to address this would be missed, noting the Council can choose to revisit these
controls at any time in future.
4.6 OPTION
2: Change the current controls, and make the area at Linklater Reserve
from the carpark on Kelvin Grove Road over the rise to the planted gully,
on-leash. The children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be
prohibited to dogs entirely.
Figure 12
4.7 This
is the Option that the Council should choose to make the area of the reserve
which poses the greatest safety risk to the community, on-leash, while keeping
as much of the Reserve as possible in an off-leash control area.
4.8 Option
2 requires the installation of a new 1.5m high [at least] internal park fence
and self-returning gates to clearly mark and separate the on-leash and
off-leash areas. A fence will ensure that dogs are not able to move from the
off-leash to the on-leash areas without their owners. A fence for Option 2
would not be within 300m of the radar station so can be constructed with
standard metal materials.
Advantages of Option 2
4.9 Option
2 has advantages. People usually walk their dogs through the carpark to the
main entranceway of Linklater Reserve on Kelvin Grove Road, open and pass
through the self-returning gates, and then let their dog off-leash from that
point. It is not uncommon for the dog [particularly for those that are
familiar with the Reserve] to then run up over the rise and out of sight and
sound of their owners – meaning the dog is more likely to not be under
the control of their owner. Owners and dogs returning to the Kelvin Grove Road
entranceway from within the Reserve add to the congestion in this space.
4.10 The area
identified in Option 2 is the area of Linklater Reserve which funnels dogs and
people close together in a small space, increasing the likelihood of
uncontrolled dogs becoming aggressive towards people or with one another. The
advantage of Option 2 is that it greatly reduces this risk by requiring dogs to
be on-leash in that small space.
Disadvantages of Option 2
4.11 Option 2
includes some, but not all, of the children’s play spaces and play
equipment. These spaces have been identified by the community as priorities to
keep free from the risk of potential dog aggression. This Option provides a
limited solution for those who want to use larger parts of the Reserve without
sharing the same space as off-leash dogs.
4.12 OPTION
3: Change the current controls so that dogs are on-leash at Linklater Reserve
around most of the children’s play spaces and equipment, not including
the wetlands area which remains off-leash along with the rest of the Reserve.
The children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be prohibited to
dogs entirely.
Figure 13
4.13 This is
the Option the Council should choose if it wants to include the entranceways
and over the rise, most of the children’s play equipment, but not the
wetlands in the bottom left of the Reserve in an on-leash area.
4.14 Option 3
requires the installation of two new 1.5m high [at least] internal park fences
with self-returning gates to clearly mark and separate the on-leash and
off-leash areas. A fence will ensure that dogs are not able to move from the
off-leash to the on-leash areas without their owners. A fence for Option 2a
would not be within 300m of the radar station so can be constructed with
standard metal materials.
Advantages of Option 3
4.15 Option 3
extends the suggested controls in Option 2 to cover most of the
children’s play equipment [not including the plane] but is not as
extensive as the suggested control in Option 4, as it permits dogs to be
off-leash in the wetlands. This type of arrangement was favoured by a number of
respondents, who highlighted the off-leash use of the wetlands as being a
specific reason they used Linklater Reserve. Option 3 also leaves the dog
agility equipment in the off-leash area, which Options 5 and 6 do not.
4.16 Option 3
responds to the majority of all respondents [both those in favour and not in
favour of changing the current controls] by making the area of greatest safety
concern – this children’s play spaces and play equipment -
on-leash.
Disadvantages of Option 3
4.17 The fence
required for Option 3 will look out of place in the Reserve. Options 2,
3, 4, and 5 require fences that run between two already existing external
fences, so they are likely to be more discreet or feel more natural that the
fence for Option 3 would.
4.18 Similarly
to Option 2, Option 3 is not responsive to the majority of the community, who
do not prefer a change to the off-leash controls generally.
4.19 OPTION
4: Change the current controls so that dogs are on-leash at Linklater
Reserve around most of the children’s play spaces and equipment, with the
remainder of the Reserve being off-leash. The children’s play spaces and
equipment continue to be prohibited to dogs entirely.
Figure 14
4.20 This is
the Option that the Council should choose if it wants to make the areas around
the children’s play spaces and play equipment on-leash.
4.21 Option 4
requires the installation of a new 1.5m high [at least] internal park fence and
self-returning gates to clearly mark and separate the on-leash and off-leash
areas. A fence will ensure that dogs are not able to move from the off-leash to
the on-leash areas without their owners. A fence for Option 4 would not be
within 300m of the radar station so can be constructed with standard metal
material.
Advantages of Option 4
4.22 The theme
that was most agreed on in early engagement was that children and vulnerable
people should be able to use the play equipment and play spaces without feeling
unsafe because of uncontrolled dogs. Option 4 therefore responds to the
majority of all feedback on this theme by requiring dogs to be on-leash around
all the children’s play equipment and play spaces, except for the
airplane which sits some distance away in the middle of the Reserve.
4.23 Further,
though roughly one quarter of the whole of the Reserve would be made on-leash,
which is a large change to the current control, a significant portion of the
Reserve remains available for off-leash exercise and socialising of dogs.
Option 4 also leaves the dog agility equipment in the off-leash area, which
Options 5 and 6 do not.
Disadvantages of Option 4
4.24 This
Option includes the wetlands in the on-leash area, which is not responsive to
those who prefer that space to stay off-leash. As discussed in Options 2 and 3,
Option 4 is not responsive to the majority of people who provided feedback, who
did not support making changes to the off-leash controls generally.
4.25 OPTION
5: Change the current controls and make half of Linklater Reserve [up to
the airplane] on-leash, with half of the Reserve being off-leash. The
children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be prohibited to dogs entirely.
Figure 15
4.26 Option 5
is the Option the Committee should choose if it prefers to split the Reserve in
half between on-leash and off-leash controls.
4.27 Option 5
requires the installation of a new 1.5m high [at least] internal park fence and
self-returning gates to clearly mark and separate the on-leash and off-leash
areas. A fence will ensure that dogs are not able to move from the off-leash to
the on-leash areas without their owners. A fence for Option 4 would be within
300m of the radar station so may be required to be constructed in part in
plastic mesh. This Option will also require additional paths to be created so
that people can walk complete loops on either side of the fence without having
to go into different control areas.
Advantages of Option 5
4.28 Option 5
evenly splits the Reserve into spaces which are on-leash and off-leash. While
reduced, the space for off-leash dogs is still significant in size and would
continue to support off-leash exercise and socialisation of the city’s
dogs. Those who want to have their dogs on-leash could be encouraged to
use the Kelvin Grove Road entranceway, with those who prefer off-leash
encouraged to use the Roberts Line entranceway, ensuring that they would not
have to cross different control areas.
4.29 A strong
theme from engagement feedback was that the community believe Linklater Reserve
is intended to be for dogs. While the Reserve is certainly known to be a very
popular dog exercise area [as indicated by those who travel from outside of the
city to use the facilities there], it is not meant to be exclusively a dog
exercise area. Option 5 would give a strong indication to the community that
the Reserve is meant to be used for a range of activities.
Disadvantages of Option 5
4.30 Option 5
is a large reduction to the off-leash area availability, and may not be
supported by the community given the response to early engagement, which
favoured no change to the current controls.
4.31 There were
631 respondents to early engagement who indicated one of the activities they
participated in while at Linklater Reserve was using the dog agility
equipment. Option 5 includes the dog agility equipment in the on-leash
area. Consideration should be given for fencing this area so that dogs can be
off-leash using that equipment if it is appropriate for them to do so, or
moving the equipment to a different part of the Reserve.
4.32 OPTION
6: Change the current controls and make three quarters of Linklater
Reserve on-leash. Dogs would be permitted off-leash in the area of the reserve
in the top right, accessed primarily from the Roberts Line carpark. The
children’s play spaces and equipment continue to be prohibited to dogs
entirely.
Figure 16
4.33 This is
the Option the Committee should choose if it would like to make the largest
possible area of the Reserve on-leash without making the whole reserve
on-leash. Dog owners could be encouraged to take their off-leash dogs through
the entrances to the Reserve from the carpark on Roberts Line, thereby avoiding
most of the on-leash areas entirely.
4.34 Option 6
requires the installation of a new 1.5m high [at least] internal park fence and
self-returning gates to clearly identify the on-leash and off-leash areas. A
fence will ensure that dogs are not able to move from the off-leash to the
on-leash areas without their owners. A fence for Option 5 would be within 300m
of the radar station so may be required to be constructed in part in plastic
mesh. This Option will also require additional paths be created so that people
can walk complete loops on either side of the fence without having to go into
different control areas.
Advantages of Option 6
4.35 The second
most common response for what people liked to do at Linklater Reserve was using
the walking trails. Option 6 would create a large on-leash area that includes
all the children’s play equipment and play spaces, the airplane, as well
as most of the walking paths. Those who have avoided Linklater Reserve as a
result of feeling unsafe around off-leash dogs may feel more comfortable using
walking paths and play equipment with this type of arrangement.
4.36 Option 6
would respond directly to the request of the KGCA made to the Strategy and
Finance Committee in February 2024 – as this arrangement is what the
Committee described in their submission at that time.
Disadvantages of Option 6
4.37 Option 6
significantly reduces the largest dog off-leash area in the City. Considering
the engagement feedback, most people who are going to Linklater Reserve are
going there with their dog, for the purpose of off-leash exercise and
socialisation.
4.38 Assuming
that the number of dogs needing to be exercised and socialised off-leash does
not also reduce, there are likely to be more off-leash dogs in a smaller area.
This would make it even more imperative that owners are responsible, that their
dogs are well trained and properly socialised before being let off-leash [as
the current rules already require].
4.39 As with all
the Options presented in this report that require a change to the controls at
Linklater Reserve, this will take time for people to familiarise themselves
with. During this transition period some confusion can be expected, and there
may be more instances of people not following the controls because they are not
aware of them, or they do not agree with the change.
4.40 Like
Option 5, Option 6 includes the dog agility equipment in the on-leash area, and
consideration should be given for either fencing this off so dogs can be
off-leash on the equipment, or moving the equipment to a different area of the
Reserve.
4.41 OPTION
7: Not make changes to the current controls at Linklater Reserve, and explore
other non-regulatory, educational, and signage options to improve safety
concerns of Reserve users
4.42 This is
the Option that the Committee should choose if it would like to address the
safety concerns described by the KGCA and other feedback respondents without
changing the current off-leash controls at Linklater Reserve.
4.43 This might
involve any number or combination of methods and tools being implemented to
improve safety of people and dogs and encourage responsible dog ownership.
Several suggestions were made through feedback which might be considered as
part of this Option, including:
§ Offering more education
activities and incentivise owners to learn about responsible dog ownership
§ Providing more education
opportunities for people about how to be safe around dogs in public
§ Fence-off all individual play
spaces so dogs cannot access them
§ Encouraging owners to take
their dogs to dog obedience or training courses [offered by external providers]
§ Installation of CCTV at the
Reserve to identify people and dogs who do not follow the rules
§ An increased presence of
Animal Management Officers at the Reserve
§ Individual fencing around of
all the children’s play equipment; or moving all the play equipment into
one area and fencing it off.
§ Making it easier for people
to follow the rules by installing more signage
§ Changing
the position of the gates by the carpark so that dogs are not funnelled
together at the entranceways which are close to the children’s play
spaces and equipment
Advantages of Option 7
4.44 Option 7
follows Council’s preferred approach to dog control and regulation, which
is to engage and educate, and to incentivise good dog ownership. Good ownership
includes regularly exercising dogs, and the proactive socialisation of dogs,
which can be achieved and supported by the Council through additional education
for owners, and the continued provision of off-leash dog areas.
4.45 This
Option will have long-term benefits for the whole of the community, as
responsible dog ownership generally benefits everyone [for example, by preventing
nuisance barking or aggressive dogs through exercise and socialisation], not
just at Linklater Reserve, but across the whole of the City.
4.46 This
Option is responsive to the common issue described by those who do and do not
support changes to the off-leash controls at Linklater by focussing
specifically on the problem statement offered by the KGCA - that there are some
dogs which are uncontrolled in the Reserve, and this negatively affects the
fair use, enjoyment, and safety of the park for the community at large.
NOTE: any of the tools and methods identified or described
in Option 7 could be implemented alongside each of the Options 1-6.
Disadvantages of Option 7
4.47 The main
disadvantage of Option 7 is that it relies heavily on voluntary compliance, and
on engagement with rules and controls that are established by the Council.
While the majority of respondents agree with the current controls and rules,
they are only as effective as they are being followed – which would also
apply to any change of control which would be made.
4.48 For an
increased presence of Officers at the Reserve to support responsible dog
ownership, the Committee will need to consider what could be achieved within
current resources. At this time, patrolling parks is a lower priority for
Officers than attending complaints and caring for animals at Te Whare Kouru.
Depending on the tools or methods pursued, a change in Levels of Service could
be expected.
5. Conclusion
5.1 Community
engagement has been completed and options prepared for the Committee. The
Committee should now make decisions about changes to the off-leash controls at
Linklater Reserve.
6. Next actions
6.1 If
the Committee choose not to make changes to the off-leash controls at Linklater
Reserve this process will stop here. The Committee may choose to pursue options
to address the concerns of the KGCA and other members of the community that do
not require a change to the Bylaw or Policy at any time e.g.: more owner
education, more signage.
6.2 If
the Committee choose to make areas of Linklater Reserve on-leash, a change to
the Policy and the Bylaw will be required, and formal consultation will be
necessary.
7. Outline of community engagement process
7.1 The
community was invited to provide feedback on the possibility of changes to the
off-leash controls at Linklater Reserve over four weeks between 24 March 2025
and 28 April 2025. The Council received 1,118 feedback responses from the
community during this period.
7.2 Information
about the engagement opportunity and an online feedback form was posted to the Participate
Palmy page on the Council Website, supported by a drop in-session on 8
April 2025, and a flyer drop to households in Kelvin Grove on 26 March 2025 and
3 April 2025 [Figure 18]. Posters with information about the engagement were
distributed throughout the community, as well as to local vet offices and dog
day-cares [Figure 19].
|
Figure 17
|
Figure 18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.3 Emails
were sent directly to interest groups such as dog training and obedience clubs,
kennel clubs, working dog and hunting dog clubs, Massey Veterinary School, businesses
in Kelvin Grove, schools in Kelvin Grove, retirement villages in Kelvin Grove,
as well as community groups such as Neighbourhood Support.
7.4 Social
media posts supported the engagement through sharing information, along with a
radio interview and media release.
7.5 Signage
that included a QR code [Figure 19] for the feedback form was installed at the
entranceways to Linklater Reserve so that reserve users could be notified of
the opportunity to provide feedback [Image 1].
|
Figure 19: Signage
|
Image 1: Signage installed at Linklater Reserve
|
|
|
|
7.6 The
online feedback form included a question about how people found out about the
engagement, which will be useful to inform future consultation [Figure
20]. This question was multiple choice and select all that apply, though
a clear majority stated that they did see information about the engagement via
social media – in this instance, Facebook.
Figure 20
8. Compliance and administration
|
Does the Committee have
delegated authority to decide?
|
Yes
|
|
Are the decisions significant?
|
No
|
|
If they are significant do they
affect land or a body of water?
|
No
|
|
Can this decision only be made
through a 10 Year Plan?
|
No
|
|
Does this decision require consultation
through the Special Consultative procedure?
|
No
|
|
Is there funding in the current
Annual Plan for these objectives?
|
Yes
|
|
Are the recommendations
inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?
|
No
|
|
The recommendations contribute
to:
Whāinga 3: He
hapori tūhonohono, he hapori haumaru
Goal 3: A connected and safe community
|
|
The recommendations contribute to this
plan:
9.
Mahere haumaru hapori, hauora hapori
9. Community Safety and Health
Plan
|
|
Contribution to strategic
direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being
|
The Community Safety and Health
Plan describes Council’s commitment to the delivery of information,
education and enforcement of regulatory policy, including the Dog Control
Policy and Bylaw.
|
|
|
|
Attachments
|
1.
|
DRAFT
Statement of Proposal - changes to Linklater Reserve on-leash controls ⇩ 
|
|
The Council consulted on the draft SMP in 2023 and
received 378 written submissions. Five oral submissions were heard by the
Council in August 2023. In November 2023, following the general election
and change of government, the Council deferred consideration of the submissions
until further clarity was provided about the extent of changes the new
Government was introducing. 