April 01 2023
To the Monitoring Officer, Plymouth City Council
I would like to lodge a complaint against Councillor Rebecca Smith.
In early November 2022 I wrote to Ms Smith to ask about worrying hearsay concerning dog wardens frightening older dog owners on Dean Cross Fields. I attach a copy of that letter below, along with a copy of her reply, which stated that she would get back to me.
Councillor Smith did not get back to me. So, I wrote again on January 04 2023, this time to all six councillors representing Plymstock. Ms Smith did not acknowledge my letter, and nor did four other councillors. The one acknowledgement came from Councillor Wakeham, who sent my letter to the Department of Environmental Quality. This was not helpful, indeed it was clearly an attempt to deflect my attention from the problems.
I received a letter from Nicola Horne in Environmental Quality, but this was not a political response, as I had requested. So, again I wrote to Councillor Smith and the other five Plymstock councillors on January 25 2023 and no-one acknowledged the letter, apart from Councillor Wakeham, who again sent my letter to the Department of Environmental Quality. Ms Horne replied to me, but again this was an unwarranted deflection from my concerns.
The situation on these fields was extremely worrying, as my letters will show, and I expect that at the very least the council representative would reply to a resident’s concerns. I am really disappointed to have written three times and been dismissed.
The nature of the abuse on these fields has been such that people born and bred in this area are now too frightened to use their own fields. Ms Smith has not shown any interest in this awful situation.
I have repeatedly explained that Plymouth City Council’s dog wardens are threatening people, making people cry, harassing, stalking, lying. Yet Ms Smith has remained unmoved.
The illegality of the council sending out wardens with a remit to threaten dog owners with bringing in the police seems to be acceptable to Ms Smith, as she has made no overture either to myself nor to the many local people affected by this authoritarian policy that this is concern for her.
If a councillor fails to communicate with a resident over a local worry, he or she is failing in their first duty to the public they serve.
If Ms Smith chooses to support this authoritarian regime, she should say so. If she chooses not to make public her views, one can only assume she supports the illegal methods used in bullying and harassing the public.
The above details show that Ms Smith is failing this community in:
her lack of communication when asked for help
her passivity when confronted with the reality of how her council’s policy is harming local residents
a complete lack of integrity by shirking her responsibility to this community
a total lack of respect for every member of the immediate dog-owning community
flagrant bias in favour of the sports club to the detriment of all of us who walk our animals daily and indeed are required by law to do so (ref Animal Welfare Act 2006)
failing to intervene to halt the tree-felling on March, when she had the responsibility to conserve nature in the city centre
No-one would know there was a councillor here as she simply fades into the background and evades difficult issues. Yet representing local people takes guts and a passion to stand up for what is right.
Unfortunately, Ms Smith has failed us miserably.
Those many people who have been fined and frightened and bullied need to be contacted and have their illegally taken monies returned. Ms Smith can access this information as contact details are taken at each encounter with the wardens.
Sincerely,
Judy Latimer
__________________________________________________
November 06 2022
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 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 ,and beyond, 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 rumour. 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
From: judy latimer <judyltmr@yahoo.com>
Sent: 08 November 2022 09:59
To: Smith, Rebecca <Rebecca.Smith@plymouth.gov.uk>
Subject: Plymstock Fields queries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Letter to all 6 Plymstock councillors January 04 2023
Dear Councillor,
I invite you to read through these paragraphs and give your reactions.
1 While there is already a satisfactory national law concerning dog-fouling, the Council’s actions under the Public Spaces Protection Order focuses on banning off-lead dogs from sports fields, thus creating a double standard of hygiene across Plymouth. Areas other than sports pitches are de facto less monitored than sports pitches. This is not welcome by the public at large who have families and toddlers who play on the grass.
Sportsmen who play on the fields in boots with studs are given favoured status. This is illogical and divisive.
As an alternative to this biased situation, I suggest you withdraw the PSPO and impose fines for those who do not pick up after their dogs across all public spaces, instead of singling out sports pitches for preferential treatment towards sports participants at the expense of the majority of the community.
2 The recent clamp-down on walking dogs on sports pitches is a stark change to what we have been used to. Without a public awareness campaign, without reaching out to residents’ groups or those who have dogs, the Council has suddenly decided that its attitude has changed and has started to fine people who have previously been able to walk their dogs on these same areas without any hassle from local authorities.
This unannounced about-turn is yet again completely counter to the spirit and execution of the Government’s guidance in this area.
“It is important for councils to consider carefully the potential impact of a PSPO on different sections of their communities. in introducing an Order, councils must take care that to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act requires public authorities to have due regard to a number of equality considerations when exercising their functions. Proposals for a PSPO should therefore be reviewed to determine how they might target or impact on certain groups.” (Public Spaces Protection Order, Guidance for councils, p10)
3 The recent clamp down has seen many dog owners terrified. Specifically, two men from the Council dressed in black hoodies, with body cameras and clip boards approach residents out on a walk, tell them to give their names and addresses, threaten them with the police being brought in if they do not comply. Then they issue a £100 fine. Our reports say that the majority of those stopped are women.
Is this appropriate? Is this what Plymouth wants to be known for? I am ashamed that a local authority in the UK should use such bullying, inappropriate tactics. It is shameful!
This heavy-handed approach is destroying the friendly community spirit that daily our walks create. The pleasure in meeting fellow dog owners has been wiped out by the council’s ill-advised out actions.
“The Home Office’s statutory guidance reiterates that PSPOs should be used responsibly and proportionately, only in response to issues that cause anti-social behaviour, and only where necessary to protect the public”. ( Public Spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils, page 5).
Plymouth Council’s measures do not align with this guidance. In fact, they have created outrage amongst a much larger section of the community than those they seek to favour.
4 So far, we have heard only of women being stopped. Do council records bear this out? We would be interested if you could let us know the number of women stopped and the number of men stopped.
5 While the council response to criticism of the recent clamp-down is that ‘nothing has changed’, this is far from the reality. Sports pitches essentially take up almost all the land in many recreational areas (e.g. Plymstock and Elburton), so that means if you are walking a dog you can now only walk round a narrow band on the outer part of the field. Obviously, the dog must be on a lead.
This is totally different to the situation we have been used to. It means that the fields have essentially been removed from the largest group of users. Totally unfair, divisive and anti-community.
“It is important that any Orders put in place do not inadvertently restrict everyday sociability in public spaces.” (Public spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils, page7).
In fact, this is exactly what has happened as a result of the misjudged imposition of the PSPO.
6 “In some cases of course it will not be appropriate to introduce broad-scale restrictions. When drafting an Order placing restriction on dogs for instance, it should be considered that owners have a duty under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to provide for their animal’s welfare, which includes exercising them. In determining the area covered by restrictions, councils should therefore consider how to accommodate the need for owners to exercise their animals.
The area which the PSPO will cover must be clearly defined. Mapping out areas where certain behaviours are permitted may also be helpful: for instance identifying specific park areas where dogs can be let off a lead without breaching the PSPO.” ((Public spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils, page9).
Clearly Plymouth Council have offered the public no alternative space. The Council has removed usable land from dog walkers and not replaced it with anything. This is counter to the letter and the spirit of the aforementioned guidance document.
7 We understand that the considerable revenue generated by these spot fines is welcome at a time of hardship. However, penalising citizens who are innocently taking a stroll in the neighbourhood is not an appropriate way to bolster town finances. In fact, it is a shameful abuse of power.
8 Other Consequences of the PSOP
I heard yesterday from a local resident that he always used to pick up litter from the fields in Plymstock. He and a friend volunteer to clear the fields of litter and regularly fill whole bin bags.
Now that Plymouth Council is acting in such an egregious way, they have both decided to stop litter-picking.
These recent actions are creating antipathy and actively turning residents against the local council.
MAJORITY USERS
Let us remember that dog owners are out there day in day out, using public fields much more than any sports team. Let us live peaceably together.
-----------------------------------------------
Letter to all 6 Plymstock councillors on 26 January 2023
Dear Councillor,
I wrote to you on January 4 2023 to protest the Public Spaces Protection Order that bans off-lead dogs from sports pitches.
As I said in that letter, the community of dog owners in Plymstock and Elburton are outraged by the bullying treatment of Plymouth City Council representatives towards local residents, many of whom are traumatised so much so that they are scared to use the local public fields.
I would like to draw your attention to another consequence of the PSPO. There is a well-liked family on Rocky Park Road in Plymstock who have a severely autistic son who attends a local primary school. Two years ago they bought a dog to help with his day-to-day care and therapy. In the summer evenings after school, one parent brings the boy and their dog to the fields where they can roll in the grass together, the boy shrieking with delight. This is a very heart-warming sight.
The PSPO effectively outlaws this activity.
This is tragic and makes me and many others want to weep.
I ask again that you get rid of the current ban on dogs off-lead on sports pitches and replace it with Fixed Penalty Notices for those who do not pick up dog poo across all areas of Plymouth.
Although the PSPO is due to be voted October, the issue is NOW and needs attention by you so that people do not need to suffer another eight months of this treatment.
Sincerely,
Judy Latimer
The following people support the abolition of the PSPO for dogs on sports pitches and support the introduction of a Fixed Penalty Notice for people who do not pick up after their dog.
judy Latimer
Emma Latimer
Andrew Barton
Jules Hart
Lisa Nickels
Mark Horton
helen downham
Sue Horton
Joanna Petch-Hayes
Kerry Wainman
William Smith
Alan Westcott
Glen Petch-Hayes
Frank Taylor
Mike Woodward
Beatrice Boue
Laura Sherrell
Jenny Snell
Izzy Rigden
Paul Marsack
Sam Shields
Patricia Gourley
Tracey Kingdon
Martin Carter
Peter Luff
Sally Holton
Shelley Latimer
Steve Showler
Sally Flint
Amanda Showler
Marilyn Stone
Steve Flint
kathleen pyne
Steve Pyne
Sara Rudkin
Debbie Tench
Kate Thorn
John Guthrie
Tracey Wright
Nick Walker
Richard Bishop
Stephen Garrood
hi there
d john
Alison Ohr
Tracy Pengelly
Kayleigh Ramsden
Christopher Collins
j c
Roz Green
Louise Whittle
Sarah N
Franklin-Martin Phoebe
Josh Franklin-Martin
Martin Brown
Alan Nosworthy
Debbi Whitworth
Charlene Prout
Niamh Murphy
David Beattie
Christine Thorn
joan dawson
Margaret Platt
Kelly Hiller
Jayne Cowan
Cheryl Bourke
Naomi Harper
Nick Trethewey
Susan Norman
Pete Taylor
Pauline Rowland
John Myers
Carole Hunt
Joanne Miles
paula marshall
Colleen Williamsonn
Peter Finn
paul southcombe
Alan Cole
mark bressington
Trevor Heynes
Barrry Ramsden
Rusne Lauzadyte
KEITH Clemo
Helen Davies
Mandy Busby
Allan Thompson
Lynn McMillan
Judith Velody
Lauren Whitworth
Maureen Benjelloun
Waris Razvi
Vicki Baylis
Natalie Smith
Janet Rooney
Irene Bryant
Ingrid G Price
Joanne Parsons
Ruchard Taylor
Pat Dodd
Mandy Caddick
Michael Kingdon
Rita Kingdon
Allison Bateson
Tony Newman
Adam Short
Charlotte Caton
Saffron Mccaughna
Anne shaw
Patricia Healey
Laura C
barbara Tidmarsh
Jane Reilly
Jane Northey
Trevor Powlesland
Christine Wright
Brenda Hatherall
Stella Goodman
Dan Smith
Harriet Rowlingson
Lisa Morley
Tracy Salter
Denis Drew
Rachel A
caroline kelly
Matthew Evans
LIZ GODBER
Timothy Holman
Heidi Luke
Cummings Jaime
Holly Reed
Sonya Fulton
Rob Bonney
Doreen Sutton
Sarah Jose
Sheryl Collick
Sally Tucker
Keren Ferrari
Robert Hodgson
Victoria Parsons
Wayne Kelley
Clair Kelley
Carlos Bars
Adam Merrifield
Stephanie Crummey
Ellie Guthrie
Amy Guthrie
Tigran Shahzadeyan
Bernadette Guthrie
Alicia Klemm
Rebecca Pettitt
Irina Ioan