Keep our Silverstream trails accessible

What evidence is there that access to these public tracks needs to be restricted?

These trails are far too important to close for no good reason.

When we are trying to encourage people to get out and walk and be healthy this is just foolish and counter productive.

The Silverstream trails are a fantastic recreational resource. Volunteers have spent countless hours making and maintaining these trails. Access to these must be maintained. I regularly walk and trail run on these trails

Keep that NZ charm and leave these trails open and accessible to all

Keep the trails open accessible

These are some of Dunedin’s most iconic trails. The DCC should be focused on how to preserve the history and beauty while maintaining the area suitable for public recreational use. Simply closing areas off without consultation to work through the issues with those most affected, shows a lack of governance understanding.

Where are the problems caused by hikers etc

I support runners to be able to run to pulpit rock without red tape. Instead, there should be a gold tape finishing line for our great out doors people. This facilitates physical health and mental wellbeing of our population as opposed to bureaucratic legal safety bloat that is not reasonable in the bigger picture.

the Silverstream tracks function as a signature species of Dunedin’s identity, just as the albatross colony does. Both are rare, defining assets that shape how people experience and talk about the city.

Please keep access open for these areas.

This proposed bylaw removes what attracts a number of people to the area - many great tracks for tramping and running. It also means that small community run running/walking events in these areas are no longer possible so it spoils both individual and community enjoyment of the local environment. There are also local volunteer groups who've put a lot of effort into maintaining tracks in these areas, so it seems like a bit of an insult to them. There seems to be no reason given for this restriction, so it seems to add extra restrictions for no benefit. Could the bylaw be altered to still allow for sensible individual and community enjoyment of these areas?

It is vital to keep the Silverpeaks open and available for recreational walking and running.

What actual evidence is there that a few trail runners are impacting the environment?

I think would be a shame if anything happens to this amazing place

Access to the trails should be for everyone, this needs to be reconsidered.

I wish to oppose the extent of public access restrictions proposed under the Water Supply Bylaw 2026, particularly around the “controlled” and “restricted” catchment classifications and what they mean in practice for recreational users like walkers and trail runners. Protecting drinking water is obviously important, but the approach being proposed feels disproportionate to the actual risk from low-impact activities, and it doesn’t line up well with either New Zealand’s public access principles or how catchments are typically managed elsewhere. The bylaw would significantly limit or fully prohibit public access across large mapped catchments, including areas like Deep Creek, Deep Stream, and parts of the Silverstream system. These are big parts of Dunedin’s backcountry that people have used for years without issue. Moving from that long standing, generally accepted access to formalised exclusion is a major shift. Under the Local Government Act 2002, there is meant to be a balance between environmental protection and social wellbeing, and this feels heavily weighted toward risk elimination at the expense of public use. The Walking Access Act 2008 also promotes free and practical access to the outdoors, which blanket restrictions like this don’t align with. From a technical point of view; Catchment science points to the main risks coming from agriculture, wastewater, or forestry. Not from dispersed, low-intensity use like walking or trail running. The contribution from runners or walkers to contamination is negligible, especially when compared to natural drivers like rainfall, which is well known to cause the biggest spikes in turbidity. This suggests the bylaw risks targeting highly visible but ultimately insignificant sources of contamination, rather than the dominant drivers of water quality variability. From what’s been published about Dunedin’s water supply, a lot of these catchments are already largely native, and produce relatively good raw water quality.

I wish to oppose the extent of public access restrictions proposed under the Water Supply Bylaw 2026, particularly around the “controlled” and “restricted” catchment classifications and what they mean in practice for recreational users like walkers and trail runners. Protecting drinking water is obviously important, but the approach being proposed feels disproportionate to the actual risk from low-impact activities, and it doesn’t line up well with either New Zealand’s public access principles or how catchments are typically managed elsewhere. The bylaw would significantly limit or fully prohibit public access across large mapped catchments, including areas like Deep Creek, Deep Stream, and parts of the Silverstream system. These are big parts of Dunedin’s backcountry that people have used for years without issue. Moving from that long standing, generally accepted access to formalised exclusion is a major shift. Under the Local Government Act 2002, there is meant to be a balance between environmental protection and social wellbeing, and this feels heavily weighted toward risk elimination at the expense of public use. The Walking Access Act 2008 also promotes free and practical access to the outdoors, which blanket restrictions like this don’t align with. From a technical point of view; Catchment science points to the main risks coming from agriculture, wastewater, or forestry. Not from dispersed, low-intensity use like walking or trail running. The contribution from runners or walkers to contamination is negligible, especially when compared to natural drivers like rainfall, which is well known to cause the biggest spikes in turbidity. This suggests the bylaw risks targeting highly visible but ultimately insignificant sources of contamination, rather than the dominant drivers of water quality variability. From what’s been published about Dunedin’s water supply, a lot of these catchments are already largely native, and produce relatively good raw water quality.

It is imperative that we keep these parts of the course public and accessible in order for the event to proceed. The benefits of this event to the community far outweigh any short term inconveniences to the private land owners.

These tracks are part of the community dont remove them