Earlier this month we asked residents to complete a survey regarding demand for a dog park in Sanctuary Cove.  The results of the survey are shown in the graphs below. (click on graphs for a close up view)


There was a 100% response to this question with 18% of responders believing a dog park was a Waste of Resources and of 36% of responders believing a dog park is Urgently Required.  With an average weighted score of 3.34, the response was solidly in the Important rating.

There was a wider skew of responses to this question.  84 responses resulted in nearly 30% saying they would never use a park and over 40% saying they would use it 5 or more times a week.  21% responders said they would use it 3 times a week.

This question attempted to establish the processes and safeguards the community wished to see put in place, particularly as any administration involvement introduces ongoing cost over and above the cost of establishing a park.

24 responders skipped this question, leaving a pool of 61 responses to the question.  Whilst most owners were in favour of safeguards to protect their pets (73-80%) most did not wish to pay a fee.  Analysing the individual results, surprisingly 12 of 18 responders saying a fee should be charged for use were from dog owners themselves.

As identified in the original post, measures need to be put in place to not only protect dog owners and the pets, but also passing pedestrians.  Fences for a dog park are mandatory, however council guidelines provide for a ‘holding pen’ where leashes can be removed and replaced safely on entry and exit.

Other suggestions included bins, benches, access to water, buggy parking, an agility course, and shade.  Some comments provided that there was no need for a dog park and that there are sufficient benches and bins in the Cove.

Locations were also mentioned, particularly the helicopter pad.  Assuming the reference is to the location at Cyprus Point, it would be too close to both the Hotel and the Chapel to be appropriate.  Additionally, it is residential development land not owned by the PTBC, as is the strip of land near the Village Gate, if that is the location referred to.

This question was to establish who was responding as a dog owner and who was not.  It also served to establish the split of single dogs and multiple-dog owner percentages.

This question was, in combination with the contact details question, partly to vet out multiple responses and responses from those outside the Cove.  Responders who provided no contact information AND did not provide some knowledge of their Body Corporate were removed from the survey results.  80 people provided evidence of Body Corporate information.  Five responders provided verifiable contact details but no RBC.

Next steps:  The PTBC will consider the responses to the survey, offer location options and provide some indicative costs.  The information will be published on this website and the community can provide further feedback at that time.

If there are further questions or comments, please contact the PTBC using the Contact Form on the PTBC page, or via email at ptbc@scove.com.au

You can also keep in touch and provide feedback via Twitter – click the Large button on the Right to follow us, and use the small Twitter flag on the left to reTweet articles to your own followers.  (@SCoveResort)

Share This