08 November 22
Plymstock Fields queries
Dear Ms Smith,
I write to ask for clarification on a number of points regarding the current status of the community fields here in Plymstock.
I live in Plymstock and have heard from a number of sources that the regulations for dog walking here have changed, although no notice has been given to those concerned dog walkers who regularly use the field.
Firstly: Has there been a change in regulation or legislation concerning usage of the fields?
The question is prompted as I have heard that several women have been fined heavily for dogs crossing a white line. This has caused great distress and undoubtedly driven those victims away from using their local field.
I have seen no indication at any of the four entrances to the fields that restrictions are now in place, or that fines are being applied. Surely such signage is necessary prior to imposing fines?
Do the fines suggest that the sports club now has a legally exclusive right to the fields and can prevent the general public from using them?
Secondly: What is the reason for this change?
How has the sports club been allowed to section off all three sections of the community fields and exempt other community members from using them?
Participants in sports are truly welcome but should not have exclusive rights over the fields. No single element in the community should be allowed to take away land or rights of use of other community members.
Why can a local resident (and tax-payer) not use the fields to exercise his or her dog? Most dogs need to be off the lead to exercise fully.
Is there an issue of dog fouling that has prompted this change? If so, I understand that there is national legislation to address the issue and thus there is no need for a local park to double up on the legal framework.
Walkers pick up dog mess and in general the fields are kept clean because the users are local people who appreciate the cleanliness for their own benefit as well as for the community.
If sports club members require a more professional environment then they should find a private field rather than removing community fields from the rest of the public.
Thirdly: The feeling of community has been shattered by these rumours of arbitrary sanctions by the council. Walkers like myself feel persecuted for simply using this lovely local facility.
The rumours of fines being dealt out heavy-handedly, the lack of communication concerning current regulations, and the feeling that the sports club has essentially taken over all three sections of the fields to the detriment of everyone else is causing distress and alienation among local residents who cherish this community area.
Fourthly: In sheer numbers, dog walkers are surely the biggest users of the fields. Unlike sports club members, dog walkers use the field in all weathers for 365 days a year. There are scores of individuals coming to the fields from dawn till dusk to enjoy a healthy walk, often more than once a day. They generally come in from adjacent streets. If the council and sports club decide to restrict dog walking to simply lead walks around the perimeter of the pitches, those scores of walkers will be driven to take to their cars to drive elsewhere to walk the dog. This is an obvious effect and would increase carbon pollution in the area. Is this really what the council wants?
I see no reason why sports participants should not continue to use the facilities along with the general public without the need for an exclusive use. Community fields are meant for everyone.
Finally, I do hope that what I have heard is no more than hearsay. I have no first-hand experience of arbitrary sanctions or harassment over whether my dog is on one side or the other of a white or greyed out line.
As a tax payer to Plymouth Council, as a local community resident, as someone who appreciates both the sports matches and the facility of a local community field, I would appreciate your clarification on these points.
Sincerely,
Ms Judy Latimer
Plymstock
_____________
OFFICIAL
Dear Judy
Thank you for your email. I am aware of ongoing concerns about the dog fouling fines and the impact on local dog walkers.
I have requested a full response from the Council, but I will say that I know part of the reason why they enforce is because the park is predominantly considered as sports fields and there are strict rules on how the Council stop dog fouling on them.
All that said, I will send a full response in due course.
You also know that I have recently raised the fact that the signage is, in my view, inadequate and if the council are going to fine people, the signs needs to be clearer.
Kind regards
Rebecca
Councillor Rebecca Smith
Plymstock Radford Ward (Conservative)
Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Homes and Communities
Chair: Plymouth Commission on Violence against Women and Girls
Plymouth City Council
Council House
Plymouth
PL1 2AA
T 07825 034970
E rebecca.smith@plymouth.gov.uk
F facebook.com/plymouthrebecca