THE FRIENDS of ST. ANDREWS PARK Fosap
THE FRIENDS OF ST. ANDREWS PARK [FoSAP]
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3RD 2014 – DRAFT 3
1] The Chair John Mayne [JM] welcomed all to the meeting.
JM explained that, while the issue of the control of dogs is a key agenda item, the question of FoSAP proposing that all dogs be kept on leads in the park was definitely not under consideration as had been erroneously stated on the anonymous posters recently placed in the park. In view of the number of people present he proposed bringing item 5 [The control of dogs in the park – for general discussion] forward and this was agreed.
2] Those present for the first item – item 5 of the agenda :-
Approximately 45 people with an interest in the issue of the control of dogs attended and it is assumed that these were mostly dog owners. Not all signed the attendance list but those who did were :-
Janice Ash-Mills, Robert Beach, Hilary Browne, Kate Fryer, Amanda Hazell, Sara Morley, Gina Packington Scott, Mark Savill, Jane Savill, Chris Wade, Emily Wade, Christine Windsor.
Those present for the remaining items :-
John Mayne [Chair], Paul Bullivant [Secretary], Steve Perry [Treasurer], David Cemlyn, Sarah Cemlyn, Cath Delor, Linda Gerrard, Cllr Fi Hance, Elaine Hicks, Mark Howard, Laura McLauchlan, Agnes McMahon, Sarah McMurchie, Jenny Morris, Toby O’Connor Morse, Simon Randolph, Doug Reid, Jon Rogers, Shane Withey.
3] Apologies :-
Fay Aldridge, Jo Corke, Cllr Martin Fodor, Jon Gulson, Alex Mills, Kerry McLeod, Martin Weitz.
4] Actually item 5 on the agenda – ‘The control of dogs in the park - for general discussion’.
There was a wide ranging discussion on key issues relating to dog control and these are summarised below as a verbatim report identifying all speakers is not possible or helpful.
4.1 JM opened the discussion by explaining that the posters recently placed in the park claiming that we would be considering a proposal to restrict dogs to walking on leads was misleading and therefore dog walkers present had been misinformed.
4.2 A number of dog walkers were concerned at the views recently expressed on the web site by Martin Weitz [MW] who appeared to be speaking for the committee when he called for more control of dogs in the park and implied that they should not run free in the park as they caused damage to the wild flowers and some owners failed to clear up dog faeces. This, some speakers said, was the reason they were attending the meeting as they were not convinced that FoSAP did not wish to see dogs on leads as this had been raised four years ago by MW.
To clarify the nature of the discussion at the previous meeting JM read the minute which made no mention of dogs on leads although it did reflect the concern of some committee members that there was and is a problem, particularly with dog faeces.
4.3 One dog walker was concerned that the statement made by MW at the previous meeting, that dogs had to be on leads on Horfield Common, was wrong and JM said that he had tried to find information on their website about this but was unable to.
4.4 JM asked Sarah Cemlyn [SC] to summarise her analysis in monitoring the extent of dog faeces as she runs around the perimeter of the park several times a week. SC stated that she has been monitoring the incidence of faeces for six months and has noted 105 examples including faeces including 5 that were inadequately cleared up. She also noted that there is a higher density around the gates, particularly those at Effingham Road, which supports the idea that the worst offenders are those who drive up at night and allow their dogs to roam free. She has also been knocked over twice and chased on many occasions. SC confirmed that she had recently made a report to the Dog Warden who had replied confirming that this is a city wide problem. JM read the reply from the Warden.
Some dog walkers expressed concern on hearing news of the report to the dog warden, feeling that they were being judged by ‘secret trial’ without the opportunity to contribute.
4.5 Many speakers expressed the view that a majority of dog walkers are responsible and pick up their dog’s faeces [and that of other dogs] and that it is a small minority of walkers who, often late at night, act irresponsibly and having dogs on leads is not going change their behaviour. The question is how to modify their behaviour.
4.6 A number of speakers, including SC, at this point called for calm and a more positive approach.
4.7 One dog walker suggested that FoSAP committee members, who are not dog owners with one exception, should be more understanding of dog walkers and should take account of their needs and views. Others suggested that FoSAP committee members should try to understand dog behaviour and should take a more welcoming approach. It was also suggested that the committee should have a more positive attitude to dog walkers who are a substantial body of park users year round and a majority in the winter. A dog owner also stated that dog ownership and exercise can have a positive health benefit, particularly for older people.
SC challenged the assumption that dog walkers are the majority users of the park as her work as playground convenor had enabled her to assess the very high level of use by children and their parents and/or carers throughout the year, particularly in the playground and more generally in the dog free area, as well as in and around the paddling pool in the summer.
4.8 Cllr Fi Hance stated that it is very difficult to achieve prosecutions of anti-social dog owners. She suggested that it would be useful to put the Dog Warden’s advice on the web site. She suggested that there are a number of practical measures that could improve the situation, for example, changes to the fencing around the dog free area which a number of dog walkers had mentioned. She suggested that it would be useful to hold a separate meeting on the issue of dog control which could be led by the council but that involved all interested parties and to which the Dog Warden could be invited. This was agreed.
4.9 During discussion a number of suggestions were made and broadly agreed as follows :-
· FoSAP should be more careful with the comments posted on the web site and the tone of what is said and make it clear if statements are representing the committee’s view.
· The FoSAP committee should be more sensitive to the views of dog owners and walkers and should actively involve them in discussions and decisions by, for example, inviting a representative of dog owners to attend meetings.
· Practical measures should be found to prevent small dogs from entering the dog free area and the playground, e.g. putting wire mesh around the lower sections of the existing fencing.
· Means should be considered for ‘shaming’ irresponsible owners, such as, spraying uncollected faeces and putting up posters showing the mess as at Combe Dingle.
· A special meeting as suggested by FH should be organised to consider the wider issues with all interested parties being involved, dog walkers, FoSAP, the city council and its dog wardens.
JM closed this section of the meeting at approximately 8.30 pm and thanked all for
attending and for contributing to the meeting.
ACTION: No specific action was agreed but the outcome of the meeting will be reviewed at the next meeting of FoSAP.
5] Minutes of the meeting of 08.07.14 :-
These were approved as a correct record of that meeting. Matters arising are as follows :-
5.1. Leopold Road boundary hedge:
Steve Perry [SP] summarised the history of the situation and confirmed that he had received no recent reports of anti-social behaviour. It was agreed that the floral spirals had helped to disburse the crowds around the park and both Cath Delor [CD] and Jenny Morris [JMo] confirmed that the number of people using the north end of the park had increased but that they were generally good natured.
CD, with the support of JMo, asked whether hedges could be planted around the boundary where Melita and Sommerville Road meet as there is frequent anti-social use of that area for defecating etc. JM stated that it is unlikely that funds would be available for that work although Neighbourhood Partnerships is a possible source.
ACTION: To be included on the agenda for the next meeting.
5.2. Floral spirals:
JM reported that the official event with the Police Commissioner Sue Mountstevens had gone well and attracted positive publicity.
Toby O’Connor Morse [TOM] said that he had been initially sceptical about the value of the initiative but now accepted its benefit and congratulated the committee. He asked that the beds could be mown in the autumn to ensure a smooth run for toboganistas. JM confirmed that this is the intention.
David Cemlyn [DC] expressed his unhappiness at the references in the press to ‘yobs’ and all agreed that this was not helpful.
Linda Gerrard [LG] raised the need for weeding and maintenance to the beds and volunteered to help with any such work.
JM read a letter from Teija of Bristol City Council [BCC] in which she advised the need for maintenance including weeding.
ACTION: Agreed to email Teija to confirm detailed need for maintenance and whether FoSAP will play a role. JM will email her on this matter as he has been in contact previously.
5.3. Fundraising for works to the paddling pool:
DC reported that a detailed survey of the pool is required and, as BCC have no funds to pay for this, he is seeking a suitable surveyor to carry out the work pro bono.
5.4. Donations:
MW is currently away and has not been able to progress this but will during September and October.
5.5. By-law update:
JM outlined current delays to implementation by BCC and reported that the proposed by-laws will be considered at an ‘enquiry day’ in November with probable implementation in the Spring of 2015.
5.6. Work to upgrade the wild life pond:
JM reported that, after much frustrating delay to re-starting the works, Teija now has responsibility for this and work will recommence in mid-September 2014.
5.7. Future management of the Parks Department:
JM reported that the situation remains unclear but he hopes to learn more at the forthcoming Parks Forum.
5.8. Proposed drinking fountain/Green Capital Partnership:
JM reported that PB had completed the application form proposing a fountain in the area adjoining The Tea Garden but there has been no further contact and a decision is unlikely before the end of the year.
6] Chair’s report:
JM had nothing further to report.
7] Treasurer’s Report:
SP reported that he has now opened an account for donations to FoSAP and that had been initiated by a generous donation by JMo of her £10 speakers fee for a talk she gave on the Wellington Bomber disaster.
8] Secretary’s Report:
Paul Bullivant [PB] reported that he had received two further enquiries from people completing the FoSAP leaflet. He enquired of those present if anyone had attended as a result of that and Agnes McMahon said that she had and was formally welcomed.
He also reported that one of the leaflet holders had been broken/removed but that the remaining ones would be replenished soon.
9] Convenor’s Reports:
9.1. Anti-social behaviour:
Sarah McMurchie [SM] reported that the slope adjoining Leopold Road had been generally much quieter this summer after a busy spring.
She requested support for proposing PC Kevin Parsons for a community award and this was agreed.
LG reported that there have been problems with anti-social behaviour around the bench under the tree at the bottom side of the park including a man camping who has now moved on to the top of the park, others reported.
There was no agreement about the issue in this area as some felt that it is important for young people to have special places to which they can ‘escape’. JMo said that Park Keeper Micky was always very prompt in clearing up litter.
9.2. Appearance and Restoration:
JMo reported incidents of a man using a metal detector in the park the first of which had been dealt with by Micky and JM. It was confirmed that this activity is not permitted as the permission of the landowner is required. Any further incidents should be reported to Micky.
9.3. Bristol Parks Forum:
JM reported that the next meeting will be held on 11th September and that it is hoped that SP and Jo Corke will attend on behalf of FoSAP.
9.4. Graffiti:
A tree at the top of the avenue adjoining the play area has been tagged. Doug Read [DR] will contact BCC.
9.5. Play Area:
SC reported that many of the safety surfaces are failing and that major works are required. As suggested by Cllr Fi Hance, she has been working with John Knowlson, Play and Youth Coordinator of BCC, to prepare an application to NP for which three quotations are required. Two have submitted and one is expected soon. SC has been assured that this procedure is accepatable as the updated NP guidelines were only made available to FoSAP in mid-August. One of the quotations submitted is acceptable although the total of c. £13,000 is above the funding limit of NP. If the whole sum cannot be funded by NP the work will be prioritised and phased and/or other sources of funding [e.g. directly from BCC] will be sought.
The committee thanked SC for her detailed work on this issue and the application.
9.6. Social and Arts:
In Alex Mills’ absence PB reported that the annual ceilidh will take place on November 7th as planned and St. Barts Church Hall is booked as is the band, The Molecatchers. He urged early application for tickets as total numbers are limited to 95.