Carrington Park - Enviro-scape Master Plan

As a resident of Nedlands and ratepayer for near on 50 years, my children my wife and myself spent many years playing football cricket with our children. Not to mention the steamroller.
I must ask Councillors who are more important the 287 children and their families living in the park catchment area or the Dogs and their owners from all over many suburbs.
What Council would allow a beautiful Park to be turned into a Dog Toilet to the detriment of CHILDREN.

What happened to the option that most of us expressed at the community feedback seminars? Option 1 is only the least of 4 evils. You have taken onboard the smaller sandpit, but we have spoken to teenage basketballers who come down with their dogs. Who is going to pick up after their pooches if the dogs are not allowed in the area? Small and big dogs don't need to be separated. Older and younger children do, especially as the basketballers run backwards to catch the ball - an accident waiting to happen if young kids are in the area.

The park works well for all users, dogs and children can be separate. Good to remember that there are children who play with their dogs in the park as well.
Option 1 maintains the separation -
basketball courts are then contained in the child zone and it still has a long area for the children with dogs to play with their dogs.
The lovely big park across the stirling highway in the rose garden is not fenced which is a shame.

I support option 3 along with three 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.
3. Install new boom gate to Broome Street entrance.

These modifications are entirely reasonable for two major reasons:

(i) There is a huge under supply of public open space in the local area and most of this space is used as an off-leash fenced dog park.
(ii) There are more children aged 19 years and younger (384 kids) than registered dogs in the ‘park catchment area’ (156 dogs).

In making its decision Council must allocate at least half of the park as children's play space; it's only fair.

I would like no. 1

Aside from environmental planning, I see no need to modify this park as it works in current format. Dog owners are generally very responsible, my children (9 and 7) are comfortable using the playground and the open spaces / basketball court (within the 'dog zone'), small children and those not comfortable with dogs can access the playground via Carrington St and it serves as a great place for people to spend time near dogs safely and work to alleviate their fears.

We favour Option 3. Thank you.

Comment received from resident: The WaterCorp makes recycled water freely available for Community Parks /Playing fields--50 such sites already in WA.If water shortage is becoming a problem why not consider some project with the Water Corp to use properly treated recycled water to irrigate Carrington St. Park?

I write as a dog owner and a parent.
The proposed "development" would be a retrograde step. The sunken sand pit is a recipe for disaster. It will be a cess pit within weeks.
The biggest design problem is that the playground splits the rest of the park into two less usable spaces. The council should invest in moving the playground, stream roller, some picnic tables and perhaps basketball to one end. Fence that off and leave the larger part for dogs and kids with footballs. In my experience, they don't mind the dogs (as long as we pick up after them (the dogs, that is)).

I am frustrated that a local park is being advertised to out of area dog owners putting more strain on local facilities. My children have regularly used this park growing up but as they are getting older they would have loved to make more use of the basketball court but after a number of mishaps with dogs who were not supervised by their owners they won't return.

We have also watched on a number of occasions as people have put their dogs in the park and then returned to their car due to bad weather. This is a community space that should be redeveloped in a way so that is accessible to children of all ages and dogs.

Whilst we appreciate the desire for local dog owners to reap the benefits of this park, we think the decision by the Nedlands Council to focus solely on their demographic comes at the expense of children in the area. Our family are privileged to own a dog, so we understand the convenience Carrington Park offers. However, we rarely allow him to utilise this facility because we think:
a) there are plenty of other areas within the Hollywood Ward to exercise dogs, and
b) we’d like to see more children return to the park.

Carrington Park was originally, and for many years, an open space enjoyed by families within a section of the Hollywood ward. It is the only park available north of the highway that offers adequate space for children to kick a ball, shoot hoops and/or simply run around.

Our sons used to visit the park, enjoy its expanse and relish in the opportunity to expend some energy after school. During the early 2000’s, dog owners gradually took ownership of the park. Both of our children eventually ceased going due to concerns with the lack supervision from the dog owners. They endured dogs taking their football, mauling their school caps and biting their hand. They ultimately refused to go back to the park that they loved.

It has also been very disappointing to watch this wonderful amenity deteriorate to its current state. We know that we're not on my own with regard to these sentiments about the priority given to Carrington Park. Many families in our street have just “given up” utilising this resource.

Perhaps the Council could consider other options. Maybe a compromise, such as an allowance for at least half the park to be for children/families only. It is our hope that the Council will consider the needs of everyone and improve this wonderful facility for all residents, both two and four legged!

It's great to see the Council preparing a plan for the future of Carrington Park. It seems the popularity of fenced dog parks is increasing across Perth with some Councils, like Stirling, now developing fenced dog park strategies and setting key criteria based on research and evidence of what seems to work best. Cities of Fremantle, Cockburn and most recently Gosnells have all decided to invest in purpose built fenced dog parks to meet owners and dog needs for socialising. Stirling has specified that fenced dog parks be at least 2800 square metres and Cockburn stipulates 7500 square metres. Both also require the parks to be away from residential homes. While its noted the City of Nedlands previously considered a fenced dog area on the foreshore, which was knocked back, perhaps over the next 3 years the Council could work with dog owners to develop a facility that meets key criteria just to take some pressure off Carrington Park. It is promoted as one of Perth's top ten fenced dog parks (as is Asquith Park in Mt Claremont) on a number of dog-related social media sites. When I've been using the park I've seen a dog sitter show up with 8 dogs, and hand out his business card. I would prefer to see just local dog owners using this local park.

It is good to see support for further development of the park in Carrington Street and in response to the published plans, I offer the following comments.
- Support the retention of the current vegetation and new trees for shade
- Need for more seating near the current seating to accommodate older residents and more socialising
- Separating dogs on the basis of size does not solve any problems with aggression and separates residents.
- This park has developed into a popular park because it is fenced and allows dogs outside the playground but we cannot expect it to provide facilities for all types of users because it is too small.
- There are other parks in the area which cater for other activities.
- There is no need for a path from the entrance on Weld Street to the right and all along the "existing planting" but a path to the left will allow prams, walking frames and wheelchairs to get in and reach the seating.
- The coarse sand swale occupies a very large component of the long grass area and having a concentration of dogs within could be very crowded, messy and foster aggressive behaviour. While most owners collect their dog's droppings, some do not. It is the owners rather than the dogs who are contributing to the mess.
- With the park as popular as it is with dog owners and the absence of any other "dog" parks in the suburb any reduction in the area made available for dogs will be problematic.
- It is not clear on the diagram if there is a gate from Carrington Street into the playground - this is needed to allow little ones who are frightened of dogs to enter the area with the swings etc..
- It is not clear as to the purpose of the existing turf - to ban dogs in that whole area is not in keeping with the traditional use of this park (given there are no other parks of this nature as explained earlier).
- What is the difference in water use and maintenance between the "long grass" and the "existing turf"?
- I would prefer the Council provide an economic improvement to this park and provide more funding to support the large underground power bill facing residents in this ward.
Abacus
-

Thank you for the opportunity to comment - overall the concept is good. Some points to consider - the pamphlet infers that all 67 parks will over time become modified to incorporate enviro-scape planning. * Will any other parks become dog parks? I believe that if only one park is converted to this new planning standard, the popularity will increase as more out of area people use the park. Currently a traffic hazard results in Weld St at certain times of the day. This would be greatly exacerbated by increased use.
*What is the width of the proposed paths? I believe that the paths will substantially reduce the grassed area of the park. *Access and egress (to the park) appears to be much improved. I assume that there will still be access from the external footpath to the children's play area as well as access between the main area and playground - this is not clearly marked on the diagram. *As a frequent user of the park with my dog, I do not believe that there is a need for separate areas for big/little and aggressive/non-aggressive dogs. Over the many years of patronising the park, it has become obvious that aggression in dogs is not dependent on size, but rather how well the animal has been trained and exercised. Also, age generally mellows the dog's behaviour.

The proposed Carrington Park Enviro-scape master plan appears to cater for Dogs and children under 6. Has the council made any efforts to survey how many kids over the age of 6 that live in the immediate area? I know of at least 22 kids between the ages of 6 and 16 within a block of the park. How is our community park going to benefit them by this proposal?
Whilst this park caters for people that live far enough away to drive to the park, there appears to be little consideration for local kids/teens that are limited to amenities within walking distance only. My kids are too scared to play on the basketball court having been jumped on and scratched by over excited dogs more than once. There is enough space to cater for all of our community and I do recognise the benefits of having a safe dog exercising area, but surely we can balance the needs of all.
Tony W

Separating large and small dogs will only result in inconvenience for dog owners. Some dog owners actually own one of each! Dogs of different sizes currently play well together at Carrington Park. Any aggressive behaviour should be, and is, addressed by the dog owner. Additionally, creating separate areas will hinder park users from socialising with one another.
The proposed sand pit is much too large - I question the wisdom of including this feature at all. In my experience sand pits become waste bins and dangerous, sharp items are often to be found in the sand.
I support enclosing the basketball court and providing a separate gate from the street directly into the dog-free areas, to benefit those who do not like dogs.

Irene, M.

The proposed dog free area is to be commended. It is hoped that the sand area will solve the problem of the damage caused by dogs.
Parking is needed at the Broome St end so people can get to dog free areas without having to go through the dog polluted areas. A gate is needed into the playground from the dog free area - the current proposal forces people to go through the dog areas to get to the dog free area and playground.

Please make the park non-smoking in its entirety. For the health and well-being and comfort of everyone save for a few smelly smokers.

Please enclose the basketball court. I have numerous children who love basketball but who do not play there because the court is not separated from the dogs and dog waste is left everywhere. (submitted by Admin on behalf of a resident)