OIA 19523 Emails.pdf

Bastian Hay
1982
From:
Harry Singh
Sent:
Tuesday, 1 July 2025 6:25 pm
ACT
To:
Eddie Anand
Cc:
ulvi.salayev; Ulvi Salayev
Subject:
Te Ara Tupua Ngauranga to Petone Shared Path - Dog control
Attachments:
2021 - Te Ara Tupua Concept Design Road Safety Audit.pdf
Hi Eddie,

Thanks for discussion over the phone. I understand that HCC are seeking some background on dog control thinking for the new shared path.

Please see below summary of our anƟcipated approach re Dog control for the Te Ara Tupua shared path. Could you please share with Brad
INFORMATION

-
The topic of “access for dogs on the new shared path” was covered in the public engagement and consultaƟon exercise as part of the project resource consents in
2019 – this received mixed views / submission from the public. More people were in the favour of allowing dogs on the lead than banning them altogether. Some
raised concerns that dogs will be threat to birds / ecology, however the consenƟng panel assessed the ecological risk and concluded that allowing dogs with leads
and restricƟng them to formed secƟon to the path would miƟgate the ecology risk.
-
Following resource consent condiƟons were issued by the panel with respect to the dog control on the new shared path.
OFFICIAL
THE

-
In July 2021, a preliminary concept design road safety audit was completed by WSP which noted safety risks posed by the dogs on the shared path (refer aƩached
report) – secƟon 2.6
UNDER
-
Over the detailed design phase circa 2022/2023, the Alliance has considered this risk and it is acknowledged in our Health and Safety in Design (HSiD) register, and
assessed the risk to be “Medium” rather than High or Significant. There is a note that restricƟng dogs on the path and lowering the speeds on the path would
reduce the H&S safety risk to cyclists or runners although neither of these are able to be enforced by NZTA or the Alliance so it is noted that the residual risk
remains a Medium risk level with responsibility on the dog owner to control dogs.
-
The Medium risk is a reasonable / tolerable posiƟon, and we had the following next steps planned for future path use / operaƟons:
1
RELEASED

o  Align with HCC and WCC dog control bylaw policy decision
o  Work with HCC to support any educaƟonal programme as part of the new shared path acƟvaƟon to create the awareness of controls for managing this
1982
risk
o  Implement some of NZTA ‘keep dogs close’ markings (LINK HERE see below snip) on the path
o  Adopt any further measures that emerge from the HCC Dog Bylaw policy update decision
ACT

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
2
RELEASED

1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER

I hope the above is useful and I am available to discuss further as required.

Regards,

3
RELEASED

Harry Singh
1982
Owner Interface Manager
Email: [email address]
Phone: s9(2)(a)

ACT
Te Ara Tupua Alliance
Honiana Te Puni Reserve
Lower Hutt

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
4
RELEASED

Bastian Hay
1982
From:
Tess Breitenmoser <[email address]>
Sent:
Thursday, 26 June 2025 1:25 pm
ACT
To:
Andrew Kennedy
Subject:
Dog markings on NKP
Hi Andy,
There’s an NZTA standard design for a “Keep Dogs Close” marking, which is included in the NZTA path behaviour markings guidance note here.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE

UNDER
These are not currently specified on the IFC drawings, but could reasonably easily be added if required.
1
RELEASED

During design development, the option of including these markings was discussed. However, it wasn’t confirmed at the time whether dogs would be
allowed on the path, as the HTPR reserve work was still out for consultation. At the time, it was considered likely that dogs would not be allowed on
1982
the path.
An additional directive was received from Eddie on 27/06/2023, to add the “Keep Dogs Close” markings onto the design. However, this was a week
ACT
after the DWP-TS-02 work package was issued for IFC on 20/06/2023. As such, this would have been a post-IFC change and given the lack of
confirmation on dogs being allowed on the path, it wasn’t actioned at that stage.
Adding the markings would be a relatively straightforward change to make before construction, should it be confirmed that dogs are permitted on the
path. Eddie agreed to put this on hold until confirmation was received, and this is documented in line 39 of the post-IFC change register here.
It might be worth giving that register another look to confirm there aren’t any other items that could pop up unexpectedly.
Cheers,

INFORMATION
Tess Breitenmoser (She/her) BE(Hons)
Civil/Transport Engineer | Kaipūkaha
Email: [email address]
Phone: s9(2)(a)

Te Ara Tupua Alliance
Level 1, 74 Cambridge Terrace
Wellington
OFFICIAL


THE

UNDER
2
RELEASED

Bastian Hay
1982
From:
Russell Obee <[email address]>
Sent:
Tuesday, 24 June 2025 7:51 am
ACT
To:
Duncan Kenderdine; Andrew Kennedy; Harry Singh
Cc:
Ed Breese
Subject:
FW: Dogs et al.. .
Attachments:
2021 - Te Ara Tupua Concept Design Road Safety Audit.pdf; HCC 2025-06 HCN Paper - Dog Control Issues on Te Ara Tupua.docx; Te Ara
Tupua - HCC Dog bylaw
Hi – FYI…

out of scope
– can discuss with Harry and Duncan (and Andy?) after the AMT meeting

INFORMATION
Andy, have included you from a design POV, if you’re around.

Have also included Harry’s recent email to David.

Cheers

R
OFFICIAL

THE
From: David Tripp <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, 23 June 2025 7:55 pm
To: Russell Obee <[email address]>
Cc: Harry Singh <[email address]>; s9(2)(a)

Subject: Dogs et al....

UNDER
Hi Rusell and Harry -

We're wanting to approach HCC Councillors about dog control on Te Ara Tupua over the next week - before council meets to consider next steps.

1
RELEASED

Sadly, I think we need to be necessarily critical of both NZTA and the Alliance over process issues - in particular in the light of NZTA's Safety Audit
(attached, see section 2.6.1) with states that dogs on leads will likely cause frequent crashes including death and serious injury - a statement NZTA
1982
then agreed with. That neither NZTA nor the Alliance thought this relevant to the issues around dog control currently before HCC is particularly
disappointing to us.

ACT
However - this is not personal - and in order to maintain the relationships we have built I do want to check we're got our facts straight before raising
this with council.

Attached is a document attempting to document the scattered history of this issue - I am happy (indeed would be grateful) for you to point out
anything we've got wrong.

Regards

David
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
2
RELEASED

Bastian Hay
1982
From:
Harry Singh <[email address]>
Sent:
Monday, 16 June 2025 1:56 pm
ACT
To:
[email address]
Cc:
Jeremy Talbot; Russel  Obee; Ed Breese
Subject:
Te Ara Tupua - HCC Dog bylaw
Kia ora David,

We have inves gated the background of this in more detail fol owing our recent discussion and correspondence. Please refer to the links of publicly available documents
referenced below.

Engagement Summary:
INFORMATION
Ngauranga to Petone sec on engagement summary - refer page 6 for the public engagement on this subject before consent lodgement.

Director-General of Conserva on:
h ps://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Fast-track-consen ng/Te-Ara-Tupua/Director_General_of_Conserva on_LP01_invited_comments.pdf - a er careful
considera on, DOC supported allowing dogs on the shared path with requirement for all dogs to be on leads enforced with a legal mechanism.

Royal Forest and Bird Protec on Society of New Zealand Inc:
OFFICIAL
h ps://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Fast-track-consen ng/Te-Ara-Tupua/Royal_Forest_and_Bird_Protec on_Society_of_NZ_LP01_invited_comments-
v2.pdf – similar submission and support to require dogs to be on leads, providing it is enforced with a legal mechanism.

Following consulta on and comments, the consen ng panel concluded that d
THE  ogs would be allowed on leads. That was subsequently the decision of the panel, and the Te
Ara Tupua Alliance are bound to that decision.

The Alliance is unable to change that decision and are required to comply with our various consents, however we are doing our best endeavours to establish a legal
mechanism through the by law to ensure the dogs are managed with leads.

UNDER
Kind regards

Harry Singh
Owner Interface Manager – Te Ara Tupua Alliance
1
RELEASED

Email: [email address]
Phone: s9(2)(a)

1982
NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi
44 Bowen St, Pipitea
Private Bag 6996, Wellington 6141, New Zealand
ACT
Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
From: Russell Obee <[email address]>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2025 8:14 am
To: David Tripp <[email address]>
Subject: next Steps?
INFORMATION

HI David – just to keep you in the loop.

Harry is onto this and we will be back to you as soon as possible.

OFFICIAL
Regards

THE
Russell Obee
Project Liaison Person
Email: [email address]
Phone: s9(2)(a)

Te Ara Tupua Alliance
UNDER
11A The Esplanade
Petone
Wellington

2
RELEASED

From: [email address] <[email address]>
1982
Sent: Wednesday, 4 June 2025 6:10 pm
To: Russell Obee <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Next steps?
ACT

Hi Russell –

I’ve ﬁnally had some  me to do some digging.

I remain concerned that NZTA has completely misrepresented the history here.

Harry’s submission said “The majority of respondents during the engagement phase of the project thought that
dogs should either be banned or required to be on a lead”.

I can ﬁnd no record of such engagement.  The project was consented in 2021 without a hearing under fast-track legisla on without submissions being called. This report is
INFORMATION
a ached.  It makes not men on of dogs in it’s analysis – only in the condi ons.

I’ve been through ﬁles back to 2012 without a hit.

Are you able to point to the engagement that Harry is talking about?

Kind regards
OFFICIAL

David

From: Russell Obee <[email address]>
THE
Sent: Friday, 30 May 2025 11:47 am
To: [email address]; Harry Singh <[email address]>
Cc: 's9(2)(a)

Subject: RE: Next steps?

UNDER
Thank you, David

Just a note to acknowledge receipt, and we will look through your comments.

Regards

3
RELEASED

Russell Obee
1982
Project Liaison Person
Email: [email address]
Phone: +64 27 394 4913

ACT
Te Ara Tupua Alliance
11A The Esplanade
Petone
Wellington
From: [email address] <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, 30 May 2025 10:32 am
To: Harry Singh <[email address]>; Russell Obee <[email address]>
Cc: 's9(2)(a)

Subject: Next steps?

INFORMATION
Hi gentlemen,

I’ve been mulling what to do from here.  Given consent condi ons have not been honoured, I am hopeful you’ll be willing to engage in some meaningful discussion about
how this should work.  Given the  me constraints I suspect this would be best done in person with council in the room.

I’ve been back through my ﬁles of the consen ng – and I don’t recall dogs being discussed at all – and can’t ﬁnd record of public submissions on this.  What’s on your
ﬁles? You said there was public support – I can’t ﬁnd any record of that.   I note condi on EM.7 – but this says dogs should be conﬁned to the formed shared path (which
OFFICIAL
INCLUDES the cycle path) – I presume in order to protect wildlife.    That’s not going to work – but this was completely kicked for touch.

I recognise NZTA doesn’t want to be engaging in precedent se ng.  I therefore wonder if sta ng the principle is the most helpful and then leaving the resolu on with
THE
Council (who’s job it is!):

“The cycle-only path from Petone to Ngauranga is a key connec on that needs to be safe and a rac ve to cyclists – in order to a ract new cyclists to jus fy the
signiﬁcant expenditure on the project, and to be of suﬃcient quality to a ract exis ng cyclists oﬀ SH2. The presence of dogs, on- or oﬀ- lead on the cycle por on of
the path will compromise it’s intended purpose and be unsafe.  The walking path is immediately beside the cycle path with ‘paint’ separa on. Dogs oﬀ leads will
certainly compromise safety on the cycle path as they will not adhere to the ‘paint separa on’. Whether Dogs on Leads is feasible depends on whether Hu  City
UNDER
Council, through it’s Dog Control Policies and enforcement, can guarantee dogs will not encroach onto the cycle path – either by straying on stretchy leads, by
pedestrians not adhering to signage, or by owners taking dogs oﬀ leads despite the designa on.”

Dog control is not your issue or exper se – we think you can kick this to the council. We can then have a debate with council saying that dogs-on-leads is a dodgy
proposi on – but you don’t need to be involved in that.
4
RELEASED

With regards to whether the presence of dogs on-leads will aﬀect the wildlife values of the project (ie discourage penguins from landing) is an expert opinion that we hope
1982
the Alliance ecologists would clarify. This is simply pu ng informa on on the table for council. Again – you’re not taking sides – just pu ng relevant facts on the table.

Does this oﬀer us a way through?
ACT

David

This message, together with any attachments, may contain information that is classified and/or subject to legal privilege. Any classification markings
must be adhered to. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, disclose, disseminate, copy or use the message in any way. If you
have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email and then destroy the original message. This communication may be
accessed or retained by NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi for information assurance purposes.
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
5
RELEASED

Bastian Hay
1982
From:
Andrew Kennedy <[email address]>
Sent:
Thursday, 11 September 2025 8:52 am
ACT
To:
Andrew Martindale
Subject:
FW: 2021 Concept design safety audit
Andrew
See email below that I sent to Harry not sure if you got this one as well that provides some background.

All of the safe system audits are here.

out of scope

INFORMATION

From: Andrew Kennedy
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2025 2:49 pm
To: Harry Singh <[email address]>
Cc: Duncan Kenderdine <[email address]>; Ed Breese <[email address]>
Subject: RE: 2021 Concept design safety audit
OFFICIAL

Hi Harry,
Some more info and responses to your comments below.
THE

  This HSiD register is an Appendix (M) to the Feb 2022 Transport services design report NKP-TAT-000-REP-CV-TS-000002 (60MB so I can’t send but it is in
ineight).
  The Beca safety audit doesn’t speciﬁcally note or make mention of this HSiD risk that we had ﬂagged (ie it sits separate from the RSA). However, the RS
Auditor is given copies of our design reports and drawings so we could say that the risk was considered appropriate by RSAuditor !!
  I’m not sure we need to or want to reopen the conversation with BECA via the RSA pathway on this speciﬁc item. The HSiD process is a suiatable
UNDER
mechanism for the risk to be considered.
  The quickest way may be to just go straight to an NZTA safety engineer (suggest we use Simon K if we can) for comment on this HSiD risk that is still live and
treatment being considered. If Simon thinks useful or valuable to him we could just get commentary from Dave Alridge as an independent viewpoint on the
HSiD risk

1
RELEASED

N.B. A request from OIM on 27/6/23 after discussion with our and NZTA transport engineers on best approach to mitigate the risk was that we should put in some of
the NZTA ‘keep dogs close’ markings (LINK HERE see below snip) however we havent implemented this change to the design markings yet as we didn’t want to add
1982
any markings if dogs would be banned from the path. If we now know that dogs are going to be permitted by HCC and WCC the use of this signage might be our
most appropriate mitigation and we could get feedback from NZTA safety engineer on this, Extract below from our ‘POST IFC change register’

ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
2
RELEASED

1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
3
RELEASED

1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
From: Harry Singh <[email address]>
THE
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2025 12:33 pm
To: Andrew Kennedy <[email address]>
Cc: Duncan Kenderdine <[email address]>; Ed Breese <[email address]>
Subject: RE: 2021 Concept design safety audit

UNDER
Hi AK,

Thanks for taking a quick look and below. The HSiD reference is very helpful.

Just a couple of requests:

4
RELEASED

-  Could you please send me a link / copy of the HSID below. Presuming this doc was shared with Beca?
-  Secondly, does Beca concur with the HSID note and if so we can replicate it under SA and seek internal NZTA Mul modal and safety engineer comment on it as
1982
well.

Cheers,
ACT
Harry

From: Andrew Kennedy <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2025 11:12 am
To: Harry Singh <[email address]>
Cc: Duncan Kenderdine <[email address]>; Ed Breese <[email address]>
Subject: RE: 2021 Concept design safety audit

Hi Harry
My brief review and thoughts are:

INFORMATION
1)  The 2021 RSA by WSP identiﬁes a signiﬁcant risk to higher speed path users and this has been acknowledged by the designer, safety engineer and ‘client’
with an action taken for this to be considered further in detailed design – there is no commitment to take any action, just to consider further in later stages
of the project
2)  In detailed design the Alliance has considered this risk and it is acknowledged in our HSiD register. The HSiD register identiﬁes the risk and I think more
reasonable assesses the risk to be Medium rather than High or Signiﬁcant. There is a note that restricting dogs on the path and lowering the speeds on the
path would reduce the risk although neither of these are able to be enforced by NZTA or the Alliance so it is noted that the residual risk remains a Medium
risk level with responsibility on the dog owner to control dogs. There is nothing speciﬁc mentioned in the detailed design safe systems audit by BECA. I think
OFFICIAL
this then closes out NZTA’s obligations under the concept design audit
Ed or Paula may be able to separately provide information on what has been done in communication with PNTSB and HCC on dog bylaw review. I understand we
have supported PNTSB with application but don’t have details on that
THE

UNDER
5
RELEASED

1982
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE

UNDER
6
RELEASED

1982
ACT
INFORMATION

From: Harry Singh <[email address]>
OFFICIAL
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2025 10:03 am
To: Andrew Kennedy <[email address]>
Subject: 2021 Concept design safety audit
THE

Hi AK,

The comment we discussed this am under sec on 2.6 page 43 of the pdf.

Could you please look into it and let’s chat to discuss approach from a safety audit perspec ve.
UNDER

Cheers,

Harry Singh
Owner Interface Manager
7
RELEASED

Email: [email address]
Phone: 021 124 0084
1982
Te Ara Tupua Alliance
Honiana Te Puni Reserve
Lower Hutt
ACT

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
8
RELEASED

Bastian Hay
1982
From:
Aston Mitchell <[email address]>
Sent:
Thursday, 3 July 2025 4:02 pm
ACT
To:
Kate Baoumgren
Cc:
Harry Singh
Subject:
Te Ara Tupua - Shared Pathway to Hutt
Hi Kate,

I’ve just had a chat with Harry from NZTA regarding the shared pathway being constructed along the water Ngauranga to Petone (Te Ara Tupua). He is
CC’d as seeking some further information I thought you would be able to provide, or if you could point me in the right direction that would be fab.

We discussed that once completed, the pathway will automatically be dogs on lead as per the default position in o
INFORMATION ur Dog Policy, which is the
preferred NZTA position due to their resource consent requirements. Having only just reviewed our 2016 Dog Policy last year to adopt our 2024 Policy,
we have no plans to change this at this time.

We also discussed if there have been any issues on shared pathways with dogs on lead & cyclists (+ walkers/runners). As far as I am aware, we do not
have an issue with this anywhere across Wellington in relation to dogs on lead. You will know more about this than me Kate, so if this is not accurate,
please correct me.
OFFICIAL
Oriental Parade was bought up as an example – the footpath along the entirety of Oriental Parade by default under the Policy permits dogs on-lead at
all times without restrictions. Along the path we have cyclists, pedestrians, etc and dogs-on lead which I understand co-exist well. We do have
restrictions for dogs on the beach itself at certain times, we also have the opposite with some o -leash areas again along the beach itself at certain
THE
times – which is to do with the di erent types of usage and the di erent numbers of users at di erent times of the day & year.
Harry would like to connect to discuss “WCC expectations re signage, surveillance, markings, and other means to ensure that dog control
requirements are communicated and enforced in a manner consistent with other paths in the Wellington City.”
UNDER
Hoping you are the right person for this query Kate or alternatively know who is.
Many thanks,

1
RELEASED

Aston Mitchell
1982
Senior Policy Advisor, Policy | Strategy, Policy & Research | Wellington City Council
M s9(2)(a)
E [email address] | W Wellington.govt.nz |
ACT

The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents.
If received in error you are asked to destroy this email and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated.
INFORMATION

OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
2
RELEASED