To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Minutes:
The Chairman read out a statement and a question on behalf of Mr Quinn referring to Items 7 (Public Spaces Protection Order) and 14 (3 Rivers Developments Limited) on the agenda:
Firstly on Agenda Item 7 – Public Space Protection Order
I was surprised to hear at the Full Council meeting last night that some New Evidence and New Proposals were being put to the Cabinet tonight on this matter. Surely, the public should have been informed - prior to the meeting.
A paper has been circulated called the full set of responses to the public consultation. This title is wrong - it is not a full set. It does not show the responses from all the consultation questions. No responses are shown from questions asking for Alternative Proposals, Adverse Impacts or Additions or Removals. The responses, that are shown, are incomplete. I know because I made a response, which is not listed. Other responses may also have been missed.
There does not appear to be sufficient evidence of nuisance put forward to justify all the clauses in the PSPO and all the areas covered. The Environment PDG considered that the consultation process was flawed. Putting this PSPO in place will leave the Council open to challenge.
I ask: Will Cabinet please refer this matter back to the Environment PDG for further review?
Secondly on Agenda Item14 – 3 Rivers Options Report
There is a request, in the report, for money to get legal advice to explore the possibility of setting up a subsidiary to 3 Rivers - to undertake work directly on behalf of the Council. 3 Rivers can already undertake work for the Council without the need for a subsidiary - the recent development at Burlescombe is an example of this.
I understand that the Company has never passed any profits to the Council and the draft budget for this year shows another impairment of £131,000 against the non-repayment of a loan to 3 Rivers. The Council has spent the last year, behind closed doors, trying to sort out the 3 Rivers Company and not all of the fixes are in place yet. With the current financial state of the Council, now is not the time for risk. Put your new Directors in place and let them get this Company operating properly - before you start talking about creating another one.
I ask: Will Cabinet please reject this request?
Mr Conyngham referring to Item 6 (Syrian Vulnerable Persons Refugee Scheme) stated that I am convenor of Welcoming Refugees in Crediton. In March this year we resettled a Kurdish family who are refugees from Syria in a house in Crediton. This was with the support of MDDC although the work involved in the Housing aspects was carried out by Seymour Lettings. . The family have settled in very well and have been warmly received by the local community. They are learning English and the teenage children attend QE and Exeter College. Last month the Homes policy committee discussed the future of the programme and made a recommendation to the Cabinet for MDDC to agree to take up to 5 families under the existing scheme and the new scheme which starts in April 2021? Will the Cabinet support this recommendation, especially bearing in mind that this will involve minimal work for Housing officers since most of the work is carried out by Seymour Lettings and no cost to the Council since any costs are reimbursed by the Home Office via DCC?
AntheaDuquemin referring to Item 6 (Syrian Vulnerable Persons Refugee Scheme) stated she was the owner of the house in Crediton which is rented by the most recently arrived Syrian family. I have been delighted with how well the scheme has worked and how easy Seymour Lettings have made the process of preparing the house for the family and then managing the rental arrangements since the family arrived. I have also been delighted by how appreciative the resettled family is of the house and of all the support they are receiving and how strong their wish is to integrate with the Crediton community. It’s been wonderful to see how generously and enthusiastically members of the Crediton community have welcomed the family and looked for ways to help them integrate. Is the Cabinet aware of how strong the wish is of at least some of the Mid Devon communities to continue with this resettlement process that allows us to benefit from cultural exchange and a sense of sharing what is good about life here? I very much hope that the Cabinet will take those benefits into account when considering the proposals to allow another five families to resettle here.
Honorary Alderman David Nation referring to Item 7 (PSPO) on the agenda stated that in June of this year I was told that I needed to make a Freedom of Information request to get details of incidents involving dogs rather than just the headline figures which had been quoted before in reports. I did this and received the following reply – ‘We have searched all systems and ran a report on all dog incidents that were reported from 2018 to date. The attached spreadsheet shows a total for the whole district as 165. During the period 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020 the total was 71, 18 of which were marked as aggressive behaviour. The rest were dog fouling and 1 nuisance.’ However the report of the PDG states – ‘Between April 2019 – March 2020 128 reports had been logged in relation to aggressive behaviour from dogs both on and off leads within public areas’. Both figures cannot be right, what is the point of making formal requests to this council if inaccurate replies are provided. My interests is in the parks in Crediton and the spreadsheets reveal that in 2 and a half years none of the incidents in Crediton occurred in our parks other than Newcombes Meadow where present regulations require dogs to be kept on leads anyway and few object to that. There were no reports of aggressive dogs in the other parks where officers are now saying more restrictions are necessary. Are you, Councillors, deciding whether to accept the officers recommendations aware of all this? If so how can you justify these further controls? Let me add that I have no objections at all about dog owners being totally responsible for cleaning up after their animals whether the dog is on a lead or not.
Mrs Mary Nation also referring to item 7 stated she was very surprised to learn of the proposal under the order to stop dogs being let off the lead which is obviously very common within the area and led us to getting the schedule of incidents from the Council under Freedom of Information. I’ve seen the latest report from the officers and wonder why the draft order ignores the results of the consultation where over half of the comments received wanted to be able to exercise their dogs off the lead. I also found that the recommendation from the PDG is unclear, it doesn’t seem to be clear whether is it proposing if the whole order goes out to consultation again or whether it is just the amendments that go out for consultation and it would be useful to know which was which. I’ve seen Government guidance that a Local Authority should consider other options before making such a restrictive order and they should also consider providing alternative places to exercise dogs off the lead if they are bringing in such a ban. Where in Crediton has been suggested, I haven’t seen anything giving any ideas. There is nowhere that I know of, except farmland, which as the guidance says, is a sensitive area for dogs to be let off a lead. You don’t know what is going to be in that field. The question of having dogs not allowed off the lead means where can I throw a ball for my dog and exercise it in that way, give it enjoyment, give myself enjoyment and give children enjoyment to play with their dogs. That would be useful to know. And lastly have the Councillors on the EPDG seen the detailed numbers and the types of complaints made as David Nation has said under the schedule that we received under the Freedom of Information request. We’ve been through those and we are obviously just talking about Crediton because that is where we live. We haven’t considered the instances throughout but it does seem that there seems no reason at all to bring in the ban when there hasn’t been any incidents in the areas proposed to be now covered.
The Chairman indicated that answers to questions would be provided within the debate or a written response would be provided.