Agenda item

Questioner’s Name

Name of Councillor Responding

Michelle Mineau, Furnace Green

You have asked for public opinion on this subject of dog walking on leads and the majority has given a very firm ‘no’. Do you intend to respect it?

Supplementary –

My worry is the way it will be implemented by asking people to spy on other people and report it on a special website. It doesn’t build communities.

Councillor Chris Mullins (Cabinet Member for Wellbeing) -

Following receipt of a petition the council sought views from the public who had great concerns and incidents at the park and also witnesses. As a result of a survey, a large majority were dog owners, but we need to look at incidents that take place within the park. We have amended our original proposals and taken on board the comments and are trying to find a compromise whilst listening to the safety concerns and taking into consideration the need to exercise dogs by putting in dog facilities.  There is still a large area for dogs ‘off lead’ and I think it is a fair compromise.

Councillor Ian Irvine –

The Overview and Scrutiny Commission can only make a recommendation.  Members tonight need to scrutinise the legislation and make sure views are taken into consideration and the final vote will be taken by Full Council as a whole.  All opinions needed to be taken into account. 

Councillor Chris Mullins –

We live in a society that has rules and legislation and all of us should obey those regulations. We want to run an education programme and inform dog walkers of why the changes have been introduced and help them train their dogs. I see it as an introduction, change and conditions of the park. 

Peter Crosskey, Furnace Green

Does the council recognise the risk of conflict of interest in its relations between Parkwood Leisure or its subsidiary running the golf club and Crawley voters and Crawley residents?

Councillor Chris Mullins (Cabinet Member for Wellbeing) –

I don’t see a conflict of interest as we need to be in a situation where we’re all cooperating with each other. We want to enhance this with an education campaign and explain to dog owners whilst working together.  It will be possible to walk the perimeters of the golf course into the woodland and we have 241 acres.

David Lightfoot, Furnace Green

Two poorly publicised public consultations have apparently taken place. Both consultations found the public to be substantially opposed to the proposals.  In which case on what grounds are these proposals being advanced?  The curtailment of freedom for which evidence has been sighted must have very strong backing to merit the measures being proposed.  The main issue is on what grounds are these proposals being put forward as I cannot think of any that are justified?

Supplementary –

I notice the proposal map, and I notice the area highlighted around the golf course.  Is it not entirely orchestrated following pressure from the people that run the golf course to take dog owners off the golf course because they’re a nuisance, even though we possibly make up a majority of users that make up those on that acreage?

Councillor Chris Mullins (Cabinet Member for Wellbeing) –

I can provide witness sessions from individuals who have seen deer chased by dogs.  We have chosen not to include the whole of the park, we have chosen areas of the park that include wildlife, the majority where the public go and where there are incidents.  We are asking dog owners to be responsible.

Councillor Chris Mullins –

We are not banning dogs off the golf course.  If a dog owner wishes to cross the golf course, the dog is kept on a lead.  It is a safety concern for the dog as well as golfers. We are not keeping dog walkers off the golf course.

Councillor Ian Irvine – Within the consultation responses the golf club has responded that they are not strongly in favour of a PSPO so I do not think we can say that they are strongly pushing this at all.