Carrington Park - Enviro-scape Master Plan

Modify Option 3 to provide 50% or more as a children's play area.

Please give Carrington Street Park back to the children. For far too long children have been largely excluded by dogs and their owners. The park was fenced in during the late 1990s for the safety of children to play, as the Carrington traffic increased. It is now largely a sand bowl and big dog toilet, with small children having to access their small play area from the busy and dangerous Carrington Street.
While there are big physical, social and emotional benefits for the dog owners and their dogs using the park, the 287 children in the park catchment area have been largely sidelined. ( There are 156 registered dogs in the same catchment area). The children should have a larger area to run around in, that is free of dog waste and dogs running on top of them, especially small children who are always at risk of dog bites.
Choosing Option 3 and increasing the children area to 50% of the park, with paved parking for children to access the park from Broome Street, would be better. Currently the only paved parking is for the dog owners on Weld Street.

After giving children back 50% of the Carrington Street Park why not create a larger, fenced dog park in the Rose Gardens across Stirling Highway between Vincent Street and Louise Street. Currently several dog walkers use the Rose Gardens Park( there is always dog poo to dodge when walking on the grass). This could be a much larger and more suitable fenced area for dogs to run and play, than currently exists in the Carrington Street Park, and there would still be a very large open Children's area.
Weld Street resident since 1985.

The remodelling of Carrington Park has the potential to unite a community - what I'm currently seeing is a division in our little neighbourhood along the lines of 'rights of children' versus 'rights of dogs'. ALL community members need access to the park; it's important that children can use this park and the 2 others within easy walking distance (Rose Garden and Smyth Rd). It's also important that adults, with or without dogs can use the park to socialise and reconnect with neighbours. Currently this is the only named dog park in Nedlands where people of all ages can interact with their dogs off-leash. Happy, well socialised dogs bark less (definitely good for neighbours) and lessen the social isolation and improve the mental health of their owners, whether they are children or adults. The CDC statistics cite that most dog bites are to children in their own home, who know the dog, and where the child is unsupervised. Please let's consider the data and stop the fear-driven views of a few vocal people from shaping our neighbourhood.

In the event that the council doesn't return the park to the people, design three becomes the next best option.
However I would like to see the area for children extended and the toddler fencing remain. This would allow a safe area for toddlers to ensure they don't become basketball casualties. More space for the kids and community is needed.

Make Carrington Park a place for our kids and our community.

It's time to have this small local park, in a section of the City which is lacking in open space, returned to its local community.

The area is too small to be a safe and effective dog exercise area - more energy needs to be directed toward proposed fenced dog parks at Allen Park and the Shenton Park Hospital redevelopment - creating much larger and more interesting areas for dogs and their owners to enjoy. They are in areas with extensive open space ensuring there are resources for all.

Carrington should be returned to its local residents as a place for all - not predominantly for dog owners of Perth, with only a postage stamp sized playground for kids.

I am a local resident, parent, and dog owner. We do not regularly attend the park as it has become an unpleasant place to go.

Our experiences have been of poorly supervised and socialized dogs, many of which are not local to the area. There have been dog fights, kids bowled over, and owners with unfriendly behaviour. Hence we choose not to take our dogs there. We choose to exercise our dogs on leads for local walks, or take them to bigger open spaces for off lead exercise, like Nedlands foreshore.

The small fenced children's play area does not meet the needs of my older kids. They would love to use the basketball hoop or kick a soccer ball, but it's not possible when the dogs are in the area. Along with their poo which owners have neglected to pick up.

At the moment the park looks like an eye sore. It's not a nice place to go. It's not a park to be proud of - It would be great if it was!

We would love to have a local park to take a picnic rug, kick a footie, play boules, meet with neighbors, grab a coffee, fresh bread and a paper (all from over the road) and enjoy it in the winter sunshine or summer shade! But unfortunately Carrington Park's current design does not allow for this. It's a real shame and such a missed opportunity for our community.

Three options for Carrington Park development have been provided, but sadly nothing that reflects what my family and so many others would love to see.

Ideally it would be great to see the park stay as it is with openings in the fence/boom gates at either end, welcoming community members and pets on leads. The turf would quickly repair, non local dog use would diminish, and community use would flourish!

Carrington Park was never meant to be a dog park. It happened by accident when the fence was installed to keep kids safe. Please correct this accidental evolution!

Make Carrington Park the local park that it should be, for the kids and the community.

I request option 2 be modified to provide 50% as a children's play area.
Dog owner

I request option #3 be modified to provide at least 50% children’s play area.

Please amend option 3 to include at least equal space for children and dogs (at least 50/50 split).

Please also consider a drink fountain in the childrens area. Many dog owners are commenting how their dogs are so compatible with children however no one thinks their own dogs are capable of harm. My two children were both bowled over by an by a dog whilst going to get a drink. They were left scratched, covered in mud and terrified. This is their only local park.

I appreciate most dog owners are responsible however many dog owning users of this park prefer to use it to drink wine or beer, smoke cigarettes and talk while ignoring what their dogs are up to. Very few seem to be picking up after them either.

For these reasons its important children have more space.

Carrington Park should provide more area for children to play than for dogs to play. It is a small park and would be utilised by more families if the play area was upgraded and small children did not feel as threatened by large dogs.
Children, adults and dogs all need space - what would happen if the proposed very high density infill was to proceed- where would all the children and dogs play? At least now, most people have some of their own private garden space as a play area. Parks are great secondry spaces for social gatherings for families with children and people with dogs. Oppose high density infill - go for private and public green spaces and a healthier, more well adjusted community.

The options for carryington park should be at least equal proportion of space for dogs and children play area given that there are more children than dogs in this area. The proportion for chi,drew should be increased to be more than that allocated for dogs. Due to the small size the park should only be available to local nedlands residents. The car park in weld st has always been and will remain a hazard to vehicles turning into weld st. I have mentioned this before. There have been several close calls and I dread the day there is a series accident.

Option 3 to be modified to provide at least 50% of the playground area to children play area. In relative terms there are far more children in the community than dogs hence increased play area is of much higher priority than dog area. The split should be ~75% children area and remainder for dogs. Access only from weld street to ensure separation from the cildren area is guaranteed. Big dogs are unsafe to small children.
Kind regards, bas & katie, broome street.

Please amend option 3 to include at least equal space for children and dogs (at least 50/50 split).


Please also consider a drink fountain in the childrens area. Many dog owners are commenting how their dogs are so compatible with children however no one thinks their own dogs are capable of harm. My two children were both bowled over by an by a dog whilst going to get a drink. They were left scratched, covered in mud and terrified.


I appreciate most dog owners are responsible however many dog owning users of this park prefer to use it to drink wine or beer, smoke cigarettes and talk while ignoring what their dogs are up to. Very few seem to be picking up after them either.

Please consider an amendment giving children a space equal in size to the dog space.. there are not enough open play spaces for children in this area

1. Remove the sandpit because of health & safety issues - there must be a better way to drain sump water 2. Need fence between playground and basketball court to stop littlies from wandering onto the court. 3. Remove fence behind basketball court to stop injuries if running backwards. 4. Have many councillors been down to the dog park to see the nice friendly village atmosphere. Why can't the park be left as it is but with a bit of maintenance - eg more shade etc

As a grandparents of little children who are afraid of free-range dogs we support option 3 along with further modifications as follows:

1. Re-position the new fence to provide and equal area of dog and non-dog space (ie. a 50/50 split).
2. Retain ‘toddler proof’ fencing to playground and install new gate.

Please disregard letter received in letterboxes over the last few days. This has not been sent out by the City of Nedlands but by someone who is pushing for Option 3 to be voted for. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should not be told how to vote. Emma

I support Option 3 to increase the children’s play area so that the park is evenly shared 50/50 for children and dogs

My children, dog and I have been going to this park for over 15 years and have made many friends over these years. It is an extremely community orientated space, not just a dog park! I can understand the concerns of those who may not have dogs but can assure them that families and dog owners can coexist. The majority of dog owners are very responsible and look after their dogs at the park. Many children come to the park with their dogs and we look after them. Many parents have brought their children to the park so that they can have interaction with the dogs. We educate children how to approach the dogs and not be afraid of them. We also go around the park each day and pick up any rubbish and dog poo that is lying around. We try to maintain the park as much as we can. For those families, who may not want to enter the park to get to the playground, there is a gate on Carrington Street that leads directly into the playground. We do tell parents that the gate is there. We also have quite a few elderly people who come to the park just for the company of others. I would be happy to talk to anyone who has concerns over the dogs. I can usually be found at the park most days between 4.00-5.00pm. I would like to think that everyone can coexist at the park as it is a very happy place to be. Please feel free to come and have a chat. Jean Falconer

I vote for and support Option 3 to increase the children’s play area so that the park is evenly shared 50/50 for children and dogs. It is only fair and reasonable. I also think that dog access should be limited to only one end of the park.
However I am disappointed and note that the votes for either Option 2 and 3 where the Broome St entrance is closed off for dogs are being diluted by being split into two separate votes against the one vote to retain a dog entrance on Broome Street. I feel that this is unfair and a dilution of votes of residents wanting either Option 2 or 3.

I am gobsmacked that after all the discussions and community involvement in supporting the use of the Carrington park for dogs and all other members of this community, that the supposed feedback has signalled a reduction in the allocated area allowed for dogs. Furthermore a letter detailing an amendment to option 3 reduces the dog area to only 50% of what it is now, which I believe is a grave mistake made by the City of Nedlands. My feedback would be to host a discussion night in the local area, or even visit the users of the dog park on site to gain a true representation of what this community is asking for, and then offer the community a changed list of options for the dog park redevelopment that is more inclusive of what users are asking for.