It Has Been Sent on from Vince Cable's Office As Is a Richmond Constituent
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
From: Cllr Penelope Frost Sent: 12 September 2017 15:52 To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc: Allister, David; Subject: Fwd: Commercial Dog Walking [ ref:_00Db0bS8V._500b01FsLMc:ref ] Just received - it has been sent on from Vince Cable's office as is a Richmond constituent. Best wishes Penny Cllr Penny Frost Ham, Petersham and Richmond Riverside Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Education and Schools I will only use any personal details and information you provide to me to deal with your requests. At times, I may need to share this information (except information you want me to keep to myself) with other relevant people or organisations, but I will always try to let you know if I am going to do this. Begin forwarded message: From: " Date: 12 September 2017 at 14:06:10 BST To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Commercial Dog Walking [ ref:_00Db0bS8V._500b01FsLMc:ref ] Dear Penny As this is a Richmond constituent and not Twickenham, I am sending this over to you. Regards Constituency Office of Rt Hon Sir Vince Cable MP 49 Church Lane | Teddington |TW11 8PA |020 8977 0606 Please note: Advice surgeries are by appointment only. Please call the office for further information. Information in this email is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You should not otherwise copy it, re-transmit it, use or disclose its contents unless permission to do so is explicitly stated. Views expressed in personal emails do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the Liberal Democrats. -----Original Message----- From: Emails Sent: 12 September 2017 13:48 To: Subject: RE: Commercial Dog Walking [ ref:_00Db0bS8V._500b01FsLMc:ref ] ________________________________________________________________________ From: Sent: 09/09/2017 Subject: Commercial Dog Walking We were appalled to hear that Richmond Council is considering extending the limit on the number of dogs for commercial dog walkers from four to six. We very much hope you will resist this pressure from commercial interests and restrict the limit to four and also limit the licences to Richmond residents. We are surrounded by dog walking routes on Ham Common and in Ham Common Woods which many residents use on a very regular basis and with great pleasure. That is not a problem because they rarely have more than one dog and as local residents they behave responsibly. However, we have seen the appearance of commercial dog walkers which alters the whole character of the activity. That is particularly the case in the narrow paths and clearings through the woods. It can be disturbing and intimidating and should not be allowed to proliferate. It could clearly have a profound effect on Richmond Park where we are all increasingly aware of the impact which the deluge of people and activities is having on the habitat and the whole character of that historic setting and it's wildlife. We hope you will resist the proposed changes and help retain the character of the area. Yours sincerely, From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:41 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming; Cllr Jennifer Churchill; Cllr Martin Elengorn; Cllr Stephen Knight; Cllr Annie Hambidge; Cllr Geoff Acton; Cllr Piers Allen; Cllr Tony Arbour (london.gov.uk); Cllr Paul Avon; Cllr Lisa Blakemore; Cllr Meena Bond; Cllr Jane Boulton; Cllr Alan Butler; Cllr Gareth Elliott; Cllr Helen Lee- Parsons; Cllr Jonathan Cardy; Cllr Jeremy Elloy; Cllr Margaret Buter; Cllr Monica Horner; Cllr Paul Avon; Cllr Sarah Tippett; Cllr Jean Loveland; Cllr Penelope Frost; Cllr Geraldine Locke; Cllr Liz Jaeger Subject: Public Space Protection Order Dear Councillors I remain concerned to hear that, in spite of the majority of respondents to the consultation on your Public Space Protection Order disagreeing, you are continuing to propose to reduce the number of dogs a person can exercise from six to four. I continue to oppose this proposal because of the negative impact on professional dog walkers in this Borough. Professional dog walkers – like the one I use locally – can easily manage up to six dogs on a walk. Your proposed change would prevent them from running a viable business and harm the well- being of many dogs in the Borough as a result, my family’s dog included. Many families depend on these services as they are out at work for at least part of the day, but like to have a family dog because they find it brings many benefits to family life and raising children. You may be aware that my family’s dog is a . I remind you of this as it is important that you understand more about the dogs that use our local professional dog walking services. Our dog is who has undergone before joining our family in . I have gone on walks with my dog walker in the past and I have full confidence in her ability to manage any dog in any situation. My dog walker provides a valuable service for both my family and our dog. I continue to have complete confidence in her ability to control up to six dogs and walk them in a professional manner. I regard my dog walker as an expert on dog behaviour and obedience training. May I again urge you to not reduce the number of dogs walked by Professional Dog Walkers. Yours sincerely From: Cllr Pamela Fleming Sent: 08 September 2017 20:57 To: ; Allister, David; ; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Cllr Penelope Frost Subject: RE: Commercial dog walkers on Ham Lands Dear Thank you for your email about the PSPO limiting the number of dogs any one person can walk from six to four agreed by Regulatory in July. I understand your concerns and agree that since Richmond Park introduced their £300 licence four dog licence for commercial dog walkers the numbers of dogs walkers using our open spaces has increased. The matter will be considered by full Council on Tuesday and so it is very helpful to have your views. Best wishes Pamela Joint Deputy Leader LBRuT Cabinet member Environment, Business & Community From: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 6:41 PM To: Allister, David; ; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Cllr Penelope Frost Subject: Commercial dog walkers on Ham Lands I am sending this email to support the decision made in July to reduce the number of dogs that a commercial dog walker can walk in Ham from 6 to 4 dogs. I understand that the ‘so called’ professional dog walkers are holding a rally on the 10th of this month to protest about this decision and are now campaigning for every dog walker that wishes to walk six to be issued with a licence. Just because they shout louder doesn’t mean that they should get their own way or are right. They complain that on the consultation form 59% of people supported the professional dog walkers, however, as very few people actually knew about the consultation BUT all of the professional dog walkers (and their clients who were encouraged to fill out the form) did, it was obvious what the outcome would be. Personally I have myself and I purposely avoid going out at times when I know that they will be there en masse as I find both the walkers and their huge groups of dogs (as they usually walk in twos so therefore 12 dogs) very intimidating. Also the amount of dog excrement in the Ham area has risen dramatically since Richmond park enforced the four dog and license law, you can hardly put a foot down without having to avoid some. In the morning to the toilet at least twice and I have to be extra vigilant to see second one, times that by 6 dogs and it’s no surprise that the volume has increased. Surely this must be a health hazard for families who picnic in the area as well as being deeply unpleasant for the rest of us. Please, don’t allow the very militant commercial dog walkers to have this decision revoked Yours sincerely, From: Sent: 26 August 2017 09:03 To: Cllr Paul Hodgins; [email protected]; Allister, David; Zac Goldsmith; Vincent Cable Cc: Cllr Alan Butler; Cllr Alexander Ehmann; [email protected]; Cllr Benedict Dias; Cllr Ben Khosa; Cllr Brian Marcel; Cllr Christine Percival; Cllr David Linnette; Cllr David Porter; Cllr Gemma Curran; [email protected]; Cllr Gareth Evans; Cllr Grant Healy; Cllr Geraldine Locke; Cllr Helen Hill; Cllr Helen Lee-Parsons; Cllr Jane Boulton; Cllr Jonathan Cardy; Cllr John Coombs; Cllr Jeremy Elloy; Cllr Jean Loveland; Cllr Kate Howard; Cllr Lisa Blakemore; Cllr Liz Jaeger; Cllr Lord True; Cllr Meena Bond; Cllr Mark Boyle; Cllr Margaret Buter; Cllr Monica Horner; Cllr Piers Allen; Cllr Paul Avon; Cllr Peter Buckwell; Cllr Pamela Fleming; Cllr Penelope Frost; Cllr Paul Hodgins; Cllr Richard Martin; Cllr Robert Thompson; Cllr Rita Palmer; Cllr Suzette Nicholson; [email protected]; Cllr Sarah Tippett; Cllr Thomas OMalley; [email protected]; Allister, David; Martin, Paul; Cllr Clare Head; Cllr Geoff Acton; Cllr Jennifer Churchill; Cllr Martin Elengorn; Cllr Petra Sale; Cllr Stephen Speak; Cllr David Marlow; Cllr Geoffrey Samuel; [email protected]; [email protected]; Cllr Stephen Knight; Martin, Paul; ; Vincent Cable; ; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: ************IMPORTANT INFORMATION********** Dear Sirs I have been informed that you were not privy to information given to Cllr Fleming in April, we have requested meetings but have been refused, interestingly, in our attendance note after the meeting to feed back to colleagues we rather suspected that our hard work would remain unopened.