Residents, however, say this is nonsensical and raises questions as to why people would waste their time attending meetings. One of the residents' biggest gripes over the Sharkeys Beach decision was what they called undue reliance by council on a petition containing nearly 500 names.

Mr Dunning said it was the deciding factor despite the fact many of the signatures were from people outside the area.

The council rejected this, saying it based its decision on "feedback forms, letters, submissions and petitions" which were in favour of maintaining an off-leash area for dogs.

Mr Dunning, however, cited a council document on community feedback that reads: 38 per cent of people wanted Sharkeys Beach changed to on-leash and 41 per cent didn't want it changed.

The document said council also considered an off-leash petition with 492 signatures against a petition of 60 signatures opposed to an off-leash area.

Mr Dunning said without clearly defined voting rights "you may as well stay at home and organise petitions".

"It seems absurd to divide the city into forum boundaries and then say anybody can vote on any issue," he said.

Coledale's Bruce Reyburn agreed the forums were in need of a rethink and the issue of petitions needed to be clarified.

"There is nothing wrong in submitting a petition but the real issue becomes what weight is to be put on one that is gathered over a wide area by special interest groups," he said.

Coledale resident Julie Boers said if forums were structured properly they could be a valuable community asset.

"I think most people are fair-minded and will go with the majority but it has to be a true majority.

"When people become disenchanted they tend to walk away and we need more people to take an interest in local communities."