Echoing My Previously Expressed Concerns. Kind Regards Dear All I Welc

From: Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 1:17 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc: Cllr Suzette Nicholson Subject: RE: Dogs at Carlisle

Hi thanks for your responses.

This was my email. Suzette- echoing my previously expressed concerns.

Kind regards

Dear All

I welcome the Council debate about commercial dog walking.

I would prefer that no dog walking licences be issued for Carlisle Park. I also think the bins should be closed lid and that dogs should be on a lead.

Meeting everyone's needs is always going to be difficult but with the rapidly increasing dog population i think that the interests of non dog owners who like to use Carlisle park also need to be listened to and protected. There are far more suitable larger, natural park spaces within very close proximity to Carlisle Park which are better suited to dogs and dog walkers.

Kind regards

------Original message ------From: Cllr Pamela Fleming Date: 14/09/2017 12:34 (GMT+00:00) To: Cc: Cllr Suzette Nicholson Subject: RE: Dogs at Carlisle

Dear

Like Cllr Nicholson your email landed in my spam scrambled. However as i think she has explained Council agreed the recommendations approved by Regulatory in July reducing the number of dogs from 6 to 4 in our smaller family friendly parks, like Carlisle, with 18 licences available for resident commercial dog walkers., reviewable after a year in our larger open spaces.

I understand your concerns and hope this will make things better in Carlisle. The measures come into place on 16th October

Best wishes

Pamela Joint Deputy Leader LBRuT Cabinet member for Environment Business & Community

______From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 9:47 PM Subject: Dogs at Carlisle

[email protected],

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],

MIME-Version: 1.0

From: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:15 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming; Cllr Petra Sale; Cllr Gareth Roberts; Cllr Suzette Nicholson Subject: Dog Walking on Council Land

Dear Council Fleming & Hampton Ward team,

Please find enclosed a letter on the dog walking subject that has been agreed by the FoCP committee.

I would add that all the committee are against the 6 dog licences borough wide and support the 4 limit though that is a personal view as residents given it is beyond the Carlisle Park remit. rgds

Monday, 11 September 2017

Via email to:

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

To whom it may concern,

Following a request for comments on the possible reduction of the maximum number of dogs a professional dog walker can walk from 6 to 4 the Friends of Carlisle Park would like to note the following:

• In general, though not exclusively, the Friends (122 currently) are strongly in favor of the reduction to 4. • We understand that Carlise Park is to be excluded from any license scheme for 6 dogs and welcome this. • We handle multiple complaints relating to dogs in the park including dogs off leads, dog faeces and some specifically about numbers of dogs walked. • The Friends last discussed these issues at AGM (July) and agreed that whilst there was no desire to prevent dog walking 4 dogs should be the maximum and that potential requirements for dogs to be on leads would be kept under review.

Please can we take this opportunity to request a review of the signing of such bylaws in the park? It has been noted by some of the Friends that there are very few if any signs notifying of the fines for not clearing up after a dog, there would need to be clear signs to ensure the 4 limit was understood.

Yours Sincerely

From: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 9:33 AM To: Cllr Paul Hodgins; [email protected]; Vincent Cable Cc: Cllr Pamela Fleming; Allister, David;

Subject: A FEW URGENT FACTS

Dear Sirs,

I have heard today from one of the Tory Councillors that Dog Walkers are paid £20 per walk I'm not sure how many times we have to reiterate this to Councillor Fleming THIS IS NOT THE CASE in Richmond.

PLEASE NOW LISTEN we charge between £12 and £15 depending - we all own dogs mostly rescued who also need walking

I'm told the Tory Councillors will be voting on the fact we earn more than councillors - PLEASE IF YOU DON'T DO YOU OWN RESEARCH USE THE TRUE AND CORRECT DATA PROVIDED.

Interestingly Councillor Fleming told a ward constituent in an email she saw FOUR of us on Thursday but in fact the truth was it was FIVE - FACT.

From: PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Re: 'Dog Walking' Council debate 12th September.

Dear Cllr Fleming,

I’m therefore fully supportive of the reduction of 4 dogs per walker to help ensure the safety of our health walkers.

Has the assertion by the ‘Dog Walkers’ that 75% will go ‘out of business’ been supported by any statistics? Have the ‘ Dog Walkers’ illustrated what revenue and costs occur in such a business and why at 4 dogs per walker most of the businesses will be unviable.

I hope you still feel strongly about ratifying the Councils decision on the 12th September.

Please feel free to share any comments I’ve made.

Kind regards,

From: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:17 AM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Professional dog walkers in Richmond

Good afternoon ladies & Gentlemen

A friend has advised that professional dog walkers in the Borough of Richmond are permitted to walk up to 6 dogs at any one time.

I understand that: 1. in July Richmond Council agreed to limit the number of dogs one person could walk to 4, bringing it in line with other boroughs but due to a social media campaign by the commercial dog walkers, the council decided to issue 15 licences to walk 6 dogs to borough residents 2. subsequently local professional dog walkers are campaigning for every dog walker that wishes to walk six be issued with a licence 3. the commercial dog walkers are holding a rally and march on 10th September and have a petition to take to the council meeting on 12th to stop the regulatory decision being ratified.

I stronlgy believe that no one, professional dog walker or not, should be allowed to walk more that 4 dogs at any one time as: a) All dogs are capable of aggression even those who to date have never shown these tendenceies and as dogs are pack animals, if one is spooked / feels threatened the others will copy its behaviour b) Many people are intimidated by and even scared of dogs, including young children and the elderly, and this fear is exacerbated by the number of dogs close by.

Finally, I have copied and pasted the following from The Royal Parks website: https://www.royalparks.org.uk/managing-the-parks/licences-and-permits/professional-dog-walking- licences/code-of-conduct-for-professional-dog-walking-licence-holders Park 'No Go' Activities The following activities are not to be conducted by Licensees:

• Aggressive, intimidating, unruly or unreasonably noisy activities that interfere with the comfort of other visitors.

• Walking groups of more than 4 dogs, it can be difficult to control large numbers of dogs so no-one should be in charge of more than 4 dogs at any one time. Do not congregate with other licensees, or non commercial dog walkers, where the number of dogs collectively exceeds 8 dogs in total.

If the Royal Parks have a 4 dog policy & limit the number of licenses per park perhaps Richmond Council should follow their lead.

Regards,

This is not a borough resident

From: Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 7:40 AM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; [email protected]; Cllr Geoff Acton; Cllr Piers Allen; Cllr Helen Lee-Parsons; Cllr Jane Boulton; Cllr Jennifer Churchill; Cllr Meena Bond; Cllr Peter Buckwell; Cllr Alan Butler; Cllr Margaret Buter; Cllr Mark Boyle; Cllr Jonathan Cardy; Cllr Jeremy Elloy; Cllr Jean Loveland; Cllr Penelope Frost; Cllr Thomas OMalley; Cllr Lord True; Cllr Paul Hodgins; Cllr Rita Palmer; Cllr Richard Martin; Cllr Christine Percival; Cllr Robert Thompson; Cllr Petra Sale; Cllr Liz Jaeger; Cllr Monica Horner; Cllr Martin Elengorn; Cllr Gemma Curran; Cllr Grant Healy; Cllr Geraldine Locke; Cllr Gareth Roberts; Cllr Gareth Evans; Cllr Geoffrey Samuel; Cllr Helen Hill; Cllr Kate Howard; Cllr David Marlow; Cllr David Linnette; Cllr David Porter; Cllr Tony Arbour (london.gov.uk); Cllr Paul Avon; Cllr Lisa Blakemore; Cllr John Coombs; Cllr Stephen Knight; Cllr Stephen Speak; Cllr Sarah Tippett; Cllr Suzette Nicholson; Cllr Alexander Ehmann; Cllr Annie Hambidge; Cllr Brian Marcel; Cllr Ben Khosa; Cllr Benedict Dias; Cllr Clare Head; Vincent Cable; Zac Goldsmith Subject: AN HONEST PLEA - RE PSPO ORDERS

This issue is causing so much stress -- to so many people --- perhaps in some way to you too.

The PSPO will never work unless you issue enough licences to walk 6 dogs.

The DCO of 2012 did succeed in encouraging the vast majority of professional dogwalkers not to walk more than six. That was reasonable.

A four dog limit with a few arbitary 6 dog licences thrown in is not only unworkable, it will cause untold chaos and ill-feeling between dogwalkers, dog owners, and other park users, and hardship for dogs. These restrictions are a step too far.

Please -- give six dog licences to all those who need them and you'll have a REAL chance for regulation.

Very sincerely,

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:11 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc:

Subject: Re: PSPO dogs

Dear Cllr Fleming,

I agree with the content of letter .

Yours sincerely

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:02 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc:

Subject: Re: PSPO dogs

Dear Pamela,

I am very happy for you to quote from my message, which was sent on behalf of FoBC and represents the views of the committee - also copied on this message.

FoBC has been in favour of a limit of four dogs for many years and was disappointed when the decision to allow six was taken - in part because we have witnessed the difficulty many handlers have in controlling dogs when first let out of their vans (also the time when they are most likely to do their business), but also because other open spaces near Barnes Common have a limit of four (Putney Lower Common in particular but also Richmond Park and Wimbledon) which makes Barnes more heavily used by professional dog walkers from outside the borough.

FoBC has a general concern about any and all people who use the Common (or other free open spaces) for commercial gain without any contribution to the upkeep. Those using it for sports, or commercial filming pay a charge. Why should dog walking be an exception? I doubt many, if any, pay business rates and of course many are from out of borough.

The increasing number of dogs walked on the common is having an impact on the ecology: a large majority of dog walkers now pick up dog mess (although we still have to clear more than we ought), but eutrophication (soil enrichment) and transfer of veterinary chemicals (especially worming treatments) is still an issue due to canine urine. Dog walking is thus detrimental to the soil condition in this Local Nature Reserve (which ideally should be kept in its natural nutrient poor condition). This may be outweighed by health and well-being arguments - encouraging residents to get out and take exercise by walking their dog, (their presence also adds to the perceived security of the space) but this well-being factor is limited in the case of professional dog walkers, while security is actually reduced due to fear of dogs in large numbers for many of those using the common for relaxation.

If the argument is economic / employment, then the implication is that those who pay to have their dogs walked will have to pay more and/or that there will actually be more employment! The limit to four dogs does not appear to have stopped the many still using Richmond Park or Wimbledon. We are aware of several responsible professional dog walkers who already walk four or less on Barnes Common.

FoBC would be in favour of all professional dog walkers paying a licence fee so that they contribute to upkeep costs, but we are very strongly of the opinion that the limit for all dog walkers should be four: having a limited number licensed to have six is illogical (on grounds of control and damage/pressure on space) and will make it harder to enforce the limit of four on all others.

FoBC has a membership of 300 (over 200 households), and while we cannot vouch that all of our members would share the committee's view on this subject, we believe that a large majority would do so. Time is too short for us to canvass all of their views. However, I assume it might be helpful for you if members of the committee copied into this note might drop you a direct note to confirm their support and add to the numbers of individuals known to be in favour a limit of four.

If you wish me to copy this to our local councillors please let me know.

With very best wishes

On Monday, September 11, 2017 10:14 AM, Cllr Pamela Fleming wrote:

Dear

As you can imagine, I am under severe pressure from these professional/commercial dog walkers and tomorrow night's council meeting will be far from easy. I haven't quite made up my mind what I'll be saying, but are you happy for me to use the points made in the email you sent to at the time of Regulatory and if they are mentioned as views from the Friends of Barnes Common. There are plenty of objections from Ham but less so from other areas so it would be useful to make this less Ham centred

Best wishes

Pamela IMPORTANT: This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:35 PM To: Cc: Cllr Pamela Fleming;

Subject: Re: PSPO dogs

Pamela, I am fully supportive of the comments below from and would wish for a change to a maximum of four dogs per walker and an annual registration fee.

Regards

On 11 Sep 2017, at 12:02, wrote:

Dear Pamela,

I am very happy for you to quote from my message, which was sent on behalf of FoBC and represents the views of the committee - also copied on this message.

If you wish me to copy this to our local councillors please let me know.

With very best wishes

On Monday, September 11, 2017 10:14 AM, Cllr Pamela Fleming wrote:

Dear

Best wishes

Pamela

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 5:02 PM To: '; Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc:

' Subject: RE: PSPO dogs

Hi Pamela

I hope all is well; just a quick note to say that I agree with all that says – best regards

This email and files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they were addressed. We apologise if you have received this email in error and request that you please notify us – thank you

From: Sent: 11 September 2017 12:03 To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc:

Subject: Re: PSPO dogs

Dear Pamela,

I am very happy for you to quote from my message, which was sent on behalf of FoBC and represents the views of the committee - also copied on this message. FoBC has been in favour of a limit of four dogs for many years and was disappointed when the decision to allow six was taken - in part because we have witnessed the difficulty many handlers have in controlling dogs when first let out of their vans (also the time when they are most likely to do their business), but also because other open spaces near Barnes Common have a limit of four (Putney Lower Common in particular but also Richmond Park and Wimbledon) which makes Barnes more heavily used by professional dog walkers from outside the borough.

If you wish me to copy this to our local councillors please let me know.

With very best wishes From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:06 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc:

Subject: Re: PSPO dogs

Dear Cllr Fleming,

I would just like to confirm that I fully support / FoBC’s views set out below,

with best wishes

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:02 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc:

Subject: Re: PSPO dogs

Dear Pamela,

I am very happy for you to quote from my message, which was sent on behalf of FoBC and represents the views of the committee - also copied on this message.

If you wish me to copy this to our local councillors please let me know.

With very best wishes

On Monday, September 11, 2017 10:14 AM, Cllr Pamela Fleming wrote:

Dear

Best wishes

Pamela

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 8:46 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming; Cllr Suzette Nicholson; Cllr Petra Sale; Cllr Gareth Roberts Subject: Council Meeting 12th September - Licenses for Dog Walkers

I write to ask you to oppose the re-licensing of professional dog walkers thus allowing them to have more than 4 dogs "under their control".

It is impossible for that number of animals to be controlled by one person - be it in respect of their behaviour but more especially in respect of the cleaning up after the animals have defecated. It will be irresponsible of the Council to allow this matter, which will sadly cause problems for those of us - dog owners - who take care of our local parks and habitats, as we ensure that our own pets do not defecate leaving the result for young children to [as is often the case] walk into and be liable to illness.

I am certain that you will find this article of interest -

http://www.kingdom.co.uk/articles/issues-and-dangers-surrounding-dog- fouling.aspx

-- Regards

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:19 PM To: Cllr Tony Arbour (london.gov.uk); Cllr Pamela Fleming; Cllr Gareth Evans; Cllr Kate Howard; Cllr Geoffrey Samuel; Cllr Petra Sale; Cllr Suzette Nicholson; Cllr Gareth Roberts Cc: ; [email protected] Subject: URGENT PLEASE - Re: Council Meeting Sept 12 - PLEASE DEFEND our parks - ie. "limit ALL LICENSED DOG WALKERS to a maximum of 4 dogs in our parks"

I understand there's an agenda item on tomorrow's Council meeting wherein the Richmond Councillors will be asked to reconsider an earlier decision to limit almost all professional dog-walkers to a maximum of four dogs.

I am a dog-walker, and I see many professional dog-walkers in Carlisle Park, many of whom try to manage more than four loose dogs; it is almost impossible. Sometimes they will walk some of their dogs on extra-long leashes, but these long leashes generate major inconveniences to other (non-dog-owning) park users.

I was delighted to learn recently from our local Councillor Suzette Nicholson at la ocal meeting (Friends of Carlisle Park) that dog-walkers have now been told that four dogs is a new maximum. That was a brilliant decision. I get tired of picking up other dog's faeces.

But I now understand that the council has already modified that decision and authorised that up to 15 licences will allow selected walkers "up to six dogs". That was a sad and bad decision. I'd like you to please insist that that decision be revisited.

Please let's limit anyone/everyone - including licensed walkers - to "no more than four dogs at any one time in their charge" within our Richmond parks. I especially ask this for Carlisle Park - as more and more professional dog-walkers and dog-groomers appear to be using it as their preferred venue. There seems to be a belief persisting that "they can walk more than four dogs in Carlisle Park because the bye-laws there are less onerous/prescriptive.

Please support a clear ban of anyone walking more than four dogs at any one time in the parks of Richmond Upon Thames. Everyone; not even licensed dog-walkers. Especially in Carlisle Park as it is only a very small amenity park.

Many thanks if you can.

Kindest regards,

______From: Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:32 PM To: ; Cllr Petra Sale Cc: [email protected]; Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Professional dog walking maximum number of dogs

Dear Hampton Councillors,

We understand that on Tuesday the council will be voting on restrictions on the number of dogs that one person can be in charge of in this borough.

It is our experience that six dogs are too many for one person to control or be expected to comply with picking up their faeces.

Our small grandchildren have been frightened by uncontrolled dogs in our local park on more than one occasion, and we know from conversations that this sort of thing is fairly common. In one instance, our granddaughter was frightened enough to insist on being carried for the rest of the outing. Of course these instances do not result in formal complaints, so claims made by the dog walkers based upon very few complaints are fallacious. Dogs in parks are frequently not that well-controlled, and owners/walkers rarely seem to appreciate that not everyone is a dog-lover. We are annoyed by dogs on a regular basis, usually in parks.

We would go as far as far as saying that anyone walking more than 2 dogs should have to keep them on a lead in all the borough’s green spaces.

We strongly believe that no one person shall be allowed more than 4 dogs whether a professional dog walker or not. This is thought to be sensible rule in the Royal Parks and many other local boroughs. If RUT allows 6 dogs, whilst neighbouring boroughs and the Royal Parks allow only 4, we risk being inundated with dogs from other boroughs, putting even more pressure on our streets and green spaces. Our parks are, after all, not just for dogs - but at certain times it’s hard to thinks otherwise.

One further thought: Dog faeces on streets is still not uncommon, and we would like to see some high-profile, well-publicised cases of offenders receiving the maximum fine.

We strongly support a limit of 4 dogs for one person to control, and NO special licences for professional dog walkers to be allowed 6 dogs.

Your sincerely,

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 4:58 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc:

Subject: Question

Why haven't you been open to negotiate on the licences?

We all think 15 is ridiculous

On 11 Sep 2017, at 07:40, wrote:

2000 LBRUT

On 11 Sep 2017, at 07:23, > wrote:

Not much at the moment!

On 11 Sep 2017, at 07:13, > wrote:

Once again I make the point Hamlands is ok for drugs sex target practice gun training indeed anything except dog walkers!!!

On 8 Sep 2017, at 21:12, uk> wrote:

Dear Pamela,

Thank you for meeting with my colleagues and me yesterday.

Despite the meeting seeming to reach no conclusion, I was pleased to hear you agree to a six dog limit for owners on the radio interview with Jo Good later in the afternoon. “Residents will be able to walk however many dogs, well, they will be able to walk, if they’ve got 4, 4 dogs or 5 dogs, they’ll, 6 dogs they’ll be able to walk them”. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05d34lv 2:20:18) I presume that this means the draft wording going to the Council Meeting on Tuesday will now read as follows:

1. A person must not take more than six (6) dogs at the same time onto the land detailed, unless – (a) he has a reasonable excuse for doing so; or (b) the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the land has consented (generally or specifically) to his doing so.

You would need to include a section that covers a licence; may I suggest the following wording?

2. Persons providing a dog walking service must be in possession of a valid licence in order to carry out the service on the land detailed.

As I said yesterday, I cannot believe that the licence will not apply to all dog walkers. There is a template licence available from Parks for London which would only need minor ‘tweaking’ to suit LBRuT. The professional dog walkers welcome a licence that ensures that the dogs and their owners who live in our borough are protected from ‘rogue’ or ‘bad’ dog walkers.

Having no licence for people who walk 4 dogs or less makes no sense. You will still have no accurate information about how many professional dog walkers work in the borough, let alone have the ability to discourage those that walk without insurance or declaring their income. It will not stop professional dog walkers with no clients in our borough from coming to use our wonderful parks and open spaces.

There will be professional dog walkers who live in our borough who may have no choice but to employ a ‘helper’ if they do not get one of the 15 licences - mortgage payments and bills don’t stop or reduce just because you may have a cut in income forced upon you. They will walk together and have 8 dogs between them. Equally there is nothing to stop people who don’t live in the borough and with no clients here from doing the same. An alternative is that some ‘rogue’ dog walkers may leave dogs in the car whilst they walk others in order to minimise travel time – not a situation we want to encourage. Not having a licence for all will create more problems than those that are currently perceived in particular parks and open spaces.

We also talked about allowing everyone who is currently providing a dog walking service to borough residents being allowed a licence to walk 6 dogs. If this was reviewed after 12 months the council could then make an informed decision.

Restricting licences to only 15 people will mean that costs of dog walking will rise across the borough. This will negatively impact the most vulnerable in our communities and many hard working families who although they have to work derive great pleasure from their dogs.

We highlighted that just because currently we are allowed to walk six dogs, this does not mean that we have six dogs on every walk. We all keep spaces to cater for clients needing extra walk because they are attending appointments, school events, funerals etc. We also discussed how this allows for fellow professional dog walkers to provide cover to our clients when we need to attend appointments, need medical treatment or have a holiday.

The large majority of professional dog walkers are also dog owners and take their own dogs out on each walk too. comes with me on every walk. This means that I currently have a maximum of 5 client dogs on 4 of the 8 walks I do each week. If I were not to get a licence that would be reduced to 3. I am not unusual.

David Allister disputed my factual statement that only a limited number of parks and open spaces have a restriction of 4 dogs in Elmbridge Borough As you can see in the table below out of the 45 areas listed 21 (47%) do not have any restriction on the number of dogs that can be walked. This is not a comprehensive list. In addition, there are a large number of commons, heaths, woods and other open spaces not in this table (Esher Common, Oxshott Heath, Ditton Hill, Stoke’s Field to name but a few) with no restrictions so the actual number of areas where the limit is 4 is well below 50%.

Areas and Open Spaces Affected by Dog Control Orders Dog Dogs on Number of Location Dogs exclusion Fouling Leads dogs Yes, from children's play areas Ashley Park Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Brooklands Community Park Open Yes, from children's play areas No No No Spaces and fenced sports areas Burvale Cemetery Yes Yes No No Yes, from children's play areas Churchfields Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Claygate Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Areas and Open Spaces Affected by Dog Control Orders Dog Dogs on Number of Location Dogs exclusion Fouling Leads dogs Cobham Cemetery Yes Yes No No Yes, from children's play areas Cobham Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Coronation Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Cricket Way Open Space No No No and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Dorney Gardens Open Space No No No and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Elmgrove Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Emberside Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas George Froude Park Yes No No Yes Giggs Hill Field Open Space No No No No Yes, from children's play areas Graburn Way Open Space No No No and fenced sports areas Grotto Road Recreation Ground Yes No No Yes Yes, from children's play areas Grovelands Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Hersham Cemetery Yes Yes No No Yes, from children's play areas Hersham Green Open Space No No No and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Hersham Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Hersham Riverside No No No and fenced sports areas Hurst Meadows Open Space (forms part Yes, from children's play areas Yes No No of Hurst Park) and fenced sports areas Hurst Park (including Hurst Meadows) Yes No No Yes Yes, from children's play areas Leg O Mutton Open Space No No No and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Littleheath Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Long Ditton Cemetery Yes Yes No No Yes, from children's play areas Long Ditton Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Lower Green Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas Lynwood Road Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Molesey Cemetery Yes Yes No No Yes, from children's play areas and Molesey Hurst Recreation Ground Yes No Yes fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas and Neilson Field Open Space No No No fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas and Oatlands Recreation Ground Yes No Yes fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas and Riverhouse Garden Open Space No No No fenced sports areas Areas and Open Spaces Affected by Dog Control Orders Dog Dogs on Number of Location Dogs exclusion Fouling Leads dogs Yes, from children's play areas and Station Road Recreation Ground Yes No Yes fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas and Stoke D'Abernon Recreation Ground Yes No Yes fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas and Stompond Lane Open Space No No No fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas and Summer Road Recreation Ground Yes No Yes fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas and Thamesmead Open Space No No No fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas and Vaux Crescent Open Space No No No fenced sports areas Walton Cemetery Yes Yes No No Waterside Drive Recreation Ground Yes No No Yes Yes, from children's play areas West End Recreation Ground Yes No Yes and fenced sports areas Yes, from children's play areas West Molesey Recreation Ground Yes No yes and fenced sports areas Weybridge Cemetery Yes Yes No No

The majority of the spaces that are limited in the table above are small recreation grounds, we discussed that LBRuT could limit similar small areas to 4. There is provision for this is in the template licence from Parks for London.

The one thing you did seem to take on board was that dog walks need to be carried out during the middle of the day. As a result, most dog walkers only do 2 walks a day. A one hour walk takes between two and three hours when you add in the time taken to pick up, drop off, drying/cleaning wet/muddy dogs, checking water bowls at home etc. Add in an additional walk for the dog walkers who don’t get one of the 15 licences and they may not arrive to collect a dog until 3pm – this is no good for the owner and more particularly the dog. During the winter daylight is limited. All walks need to be completed within daylight hours so arriving to collect a dog at 3pm is not acceptable. All this means that dogs will be left at home alone for longer. This may create negative behaviours like barking and whining that will disturb the neighbours. The dogs will have pent up energy when they finally get to the parks and this may cause anti-social behaviour there too. To be honest, most dog walkers would no longer be able to walk all their dogs as there is not enough time to add in more walks. Those owners will need to find a new dog walker, so in fact you are encouraging more dog walking services to start, and obviously, as we discussed, there can be problems with inexperienced walkers not building their client base up slowly.

David Allister stated that no studies were done during the pre-consultation to establish how many dogs there are in the borough, how many people own more than 4 dogs, how many residents use the services of a professional dog walker or how many people would be negatively impacted by a reduction in the number of dogs that any one person can walk. Although it is not a legal requirement, other boroughs have been far more diligent and transparent about the work that they have done during their pre-consultation.

It is our estimation that there are at least 8,000 dogs owned by borough residents, but probably nearer 10,000. Dog ownership is rising and people need professional dog walkers as a result. Not everyone who gets a dog initially needs a professional dog walker, but things can change over time with work or health issues driving a need for our services.

We discussed that if only 15 licences were issued and professional dog walkers were able to fit in another walk each day how this would have a negative impact on the flora, fauna, traffic and pollution.

We tried to talk about professional dog walkers walking together, and how this has not been addressed in the PSPO. If people are allowed to walk up to 4 dogs without a licence then there will be no ability to control this. In fact as mentioned previously, limiting licences will cause more walking together as some dog walkers will have no choice but to employ a ‘helper’ and therefore there will be walking 2 people with 8 dogs, or maybe 4 people with 16 dogs, etc. Within the template licence from Parks for London there are already rules about professional dog walkers walking together.

Once again yesterday, David Allister claimed that Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued in the borough in relation to the Dog Control Order as he did at the Regulatory meeting on 11th July. This disputes information that he has previously provided. I am aware that councillors from the Regulatory Committee received an email at 16.38 on 14th July 2017 forwarding an email dated 12th July 2017 in which David Allister admits that no FPN have been issued on borough land since the implementation of the Dog Control Order in 2012.

Also, we touched on how despite numerous complaints made by professional dog walkers against other ‘rogue’ dog walkers breaking the current Dog Control Order no action has been taken. This is frustrating in the extreme. We do not want people purporting to be professionals making us all look bad.

We are aware that not all people like dogs, but the very large majority of professional dog walkers pay attention to their surroundings and particularly to other park users. It is easy to spot body language which shows that people are either worried, scared or simply do not wish to interact. We take action to prevent any interaction in those circumstances. Within the template licence from Parks for London there is a Code of Conduct that professional dog walkers would agree to that highlights for the tiny minority of us who are not already aware, what best practice and considerate behaviour to other park users is.

In conclusion, there has been a lot of misinformation given to councillors which hasn’t allowed them to make informed decisions. We want to work with you, to encourage best practice and high standards in the professional dog walking community. We would like it very much if you would consider our suggestion of licencing all dog walkers currently providing a valuable service to our residents to walk up to 6 dogs. This should include those that do not live in the borough, but having the majority of their clients in the borough. A review after 12 months would allow for an informed decision as to what the needs are of the dog owners who live in our borough.

Kind regards

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 1:03 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc: Subject: Dogs on Barnes Common

Dear Pamela, I heartily endorse all that has said on this subject. Indeed I said very similar things in my reply to the PSPO consultation on behalf of the BCA Environment Group. Four dogs is quite enough for any one person to handle. If you need numbers the Group has a mailing list of sixty; obviously not all of these attend all meetings, but there is a central core of about a dozen who come regularly and were consulted on our reply, while all sixty will have known of this consultation.

______From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:53 PM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; Zac Goldsmith Subject: Commercial Dog Walkers

Dear All,

I am writing to you as I am against allowing commercial dog walkers to have more than four dogs at a time.

I have been 'attacked' by dogs on Sheen Common (managed by the council for the NT) with large dogs leaping up at me covering me with muddy paw prints. I do not like dogs and the dog walker just laughed at me and mocked me when I told him I didn't like dogs. He clearly didn't have control over the seven dogs. Needless to say I don't like to walk in Sheen Common much now which is my local green space.

Additionally, the soiling of our natural habitat is becoming worse.

Please do not allow this motion to pass.

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone

______From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:40 PM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming; Zac Goldsmith; [email protected] Subject: Reduction in number of dogs walked from 6 to 4

I am writing to support the reduction in the number of dogs walked from 6 to 4 due to the vast increase in recent years in the number of professional dog walkers which has completely changed the environment of our open spaces. Where previously you could have 10 dog walkers walking their own dogs you can now potentially have 60 dogs in the same area which has a dramatic effect on these open spaces. There is the increased hazard of dog mess and damage to the flora an fauna as well as the increased risk of dogs getting out of control (far easier to control four than six!) For small children dogs can be very intimidating, especially in large numbers, and most parents would not wish their children to become scared of dogs as a result. In addition many adults are scared of dogs and will find the vast increase in numbers off putting. This situation has been exacerbated by the fact that surrounding areas have a four dog limit which means that professional dog walkers from all over London are now homing on Richmond, and Ham and Petersham in particular, to walk their dogs. I understand that there was a rally yesterday arranged by professional dog walkers which undoubtedly got support but it is easy to see how their numbers can be impressive as those with a direct financial interest (dog walkers and those who own the dogs walked) will soon add up - 50 dog walkers + 300 dog owners makes for an impressive lobby but it does not take into account the views of the many residents for whom our open spaces are for enjoyment rather than financial gain and for whom the reduction from six to four seemed commonsense and therefore not needing any response in consultation. I have no wish to damage anyone's livelihood but I am not aware that professional dog walking has become a unremunerative occupation in parts of London with four dog restrictions.

In summary I would urge you to support the four dog limit for the benefit of the borough as a whole.

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:30 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Please Limit the No. of Dog Walkers in Richmond Borough's Parks

Dear Cllr Fleming,

The parks are for use by residents, not for the benefit of commercial businesses. If more dog walkers are allowed to walk more dogs, this is the same as allowing my plumber in his van to travel through the park. The parks in our borough should be preserved as best they can to be an oasis of quiet and for quiet enjoyment. Please don’t allow there to be any increase in the number of professional dog walkers in our parks.

Yours,

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 12:35 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Dog Walking

Dear Cllr Fleming,

I am writing to add my support to local residents who are objecting to the large number of so-called professional dog- walkers who now using Ham Lands and Richmond Park.

I live in a rural area in but for years have been fortunate in being able to spend a lot of my time staying with a friend who lives in Ham. It was always such an enormous pleasure to walk with her and her dog in Ham; along the river and frequently in Richmond Park. An added pleasure was meeting up with others who had become friends through dog walking. However, I've been increasingly aware that this has changed, owing to the large numbers of so-called professional dog walkers exercising their dogs in these beautiful places. I've been a dog owner for most of my life and am amazed that it is considered alright to allow one person to 'walk' 6 dogs at a time. This is no way for a dog to be treated. If people cannot find time in their lives to walk their own dogs they shouldn't be allowed to keep them. What was once a joy and a pleasure for my friend and others like her is being ruined by these 'professional' dog walkers. I might add that I have been disgusted at the amount of dogs' droppings one now sees everywhere. And steps in, if unfortunate. This is an obvious health hazard as children play in these places. Obviously 'professional' dog walking is an easy way for people to make quite a lot of money - at the expense of the dogs.

I do hope you will not agree to issue licences to allow people to walk 6 dogs. (Even 4 is too many - unless one's own.)

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 11:51 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Commercial dog walking

Dear Councillor Fleming I am emailing to request that the reduction of dogs walked by commercial dog walkers is maintained at four dogs.

for Friends of Barnes Common and

My concern is the impact that dogs clearly have on our birdlife through disturbance, especially those that nest on the ground such as Willow Warblers and Chiffchaffs and those birds that winter here particulary Woodcock which also reside on the ground.

It really does only take one dog out of control to potentially cause birds to adandon a nest site - this has happened at a couple of years ago with the and certainly from my experience on Barnes Common, there are always some dogs off the lease

I do understand that taking on the dog walkers is an immensely difficult task but I do hope that you are able to stay with the original commitment to four dogs.

Best regards

From: Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 7:23 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc:

Subject: What the future voters think

From: Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:56 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected] Subject: Four dog limit

I live in Whitton and support the Council’s decision to limit to four the number of dogs one person can take into R u T parks/open spaces. However I object to the proposal to increase the limit to six even for commercial dog walkers. My view is based on the difficulties and incidents I have observed with dog walkers unable to control multiple dogs on their own.

Sent from Windows Mail

From: Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 12:54 AM To: Cc: Cllr Pamela Fleming; Murray, Ishbel; Allister, David; Cllr Geoff Acton; Cllr Piers Allen; Cllr Helen Lee-Parsons; Cllr Jane Boulton; Cllr Jennifer Churchill; Cllr Meena Bond; Cllr Peter Buckwell; Cllr Alan Butler; Cllr Jonathan Cardy; Cllr Jeremy Elloy; Cllr Margaret Buter; Cllr Tony Arbour (london.gov.uk); Cllr Paul Avon; Cllr Lisa Blakemore; Cllr Mark Boyle; Cllr John Coombs; [email protected]; Cllr Suzette Nicholson; Cllr Sarah Tippett; Cllr Stephen Knight; Cllr Stephen Speak; Cllr Alexander Ehmann; Cllr Annie Hambidge; Cllr Ben Khosa; Cllr Benedict Dias; Cllr Brian Marcel; Cllr Christine Percival; Cllr Clare Head; Cllr David Linnette; Cllr David Marlow; Cllr David Porter; Cllr Gareth Evans; Cllr Gemma Curran; Cllr Geoffrey Samuel; Cllr Geraldine Locke; Cllr Grant Healy; [email protected]; Cllr Helen Hill; Cllr Kate Howard; Cllr Liz Jaeger; Cllr Lord True; Cllr Monica Horner; Cllr Martin Elengorn; Cllr Paul Hodgins; Cllr Petra Sale; Cllr Rita Palmer; Cllr Richard Martin; Cllr Robert Thompson; Cllr Thomas OMalley; Cllr Penelope Frost; Cllr Jean Loveland; [email protected]; Vincent Cable Subject: Meeting with Professional Dog Walkers, Thursday 7th September2017

Oh dear Pamela you wouldn't survive a second on Radio 4's Just a Minute with all that hesitation repetition and deviation!!!

On 9 Sep 2017, at 23:54, wrote:

Dear Pamela ,

I have certainly listened several times to the full broadcast, and so as not be accused of taking your words out of context in my email yesterday I have included the full paragraph from which I took my quote, and continued up to and including the quote you make in your earlier email which was that last sentence in the interview.

“Well, this was, this was certainly in the wording of the document that went to Regu, to, to our Regulatory Committee, that they um approved. But I have since actually spoken to officers, and I, and I think that um, we can’t um start licensing residents to walk on the land so these licences will be for professional dog walkers only, not for residents. Um, I’ve heard what’s been said about this. I don’t know the numbers, I’m not going to challenge them because I, I, I don’t have the evidence, but residents will be able to walk however many dogs, well, they will be able to walk, if they’ve got 4, 4 dogs or 5 dogs, they’ll, 6 dogs they’ll be able to walk them.”

“Um, I’m not sure what you mean by too late, what do you mean by too late? We, we are, we are taking um the matter yes it comes to council, the Regulatory um recommendations that have been approved have to come to Council, Full Council on Tuesday for um ratification, um and ah indeed I will be speaking in that debate. I have listened to what the dog walkers have said, but I would also like to finally say this is a balance. These are open spaces for all to share.”

“Well I, I, I must say that I, I, I just think it is very difficult um for us to say to residents, um, who are council tax payers you can’t walk your dogs. I want to also do, some more, have some more research done about how many people do have more than 4 dogs.”

You slightly misquote yourself with regards to your final sentence, perhaps you haven’t listened to the full broadcast.

As I said in my previous email, David Allister said that no research had been done with regards to how many residents own more than 4 dogs, so ‘some more research’ is not an accurate statement. Some research would be accurate.

“The number of resident dog owners quoted by you and your colleagues has varied”

I’m not sure that I understand what you mean by this sentence, but I will interpret it as we have changed the truth?

If you are referring to the number of residents who own more than 4 dogs, the reality is that we have written to every vet in the borough. We asked how many clients they have registered who own more than 4 dogs. We have made 2 statements, one which was that from responses from 5 vets they had 39 clients with more than 4 dogs registered. That included 4 vets with 39 owners between them and 1 vet who didn’t have the facility to get that information from their computer system. Since then we had a response from another vet who only has 1 client with more than 4 dogs. As we did not have clear information from the previously mentioned vet about whether they did or did not have clients with more than 4 dogs, it was felt that including them in our figures could be misleading.

Or perhaps you are referring to when we had our meeting with you on Thursday and said that we extrapolated that as there are many more than 5 vets in the borough, there were likely to be 100+ owners with more than 4 dogs.

“we have listened to what you said and in good faith agreed that if they meet the criteria all the licences will be allocated to the professional dog walker,”

Please can you explain what you mean by this?

“whist in the meantime we undertake further research on numbers of resident dog owners.”

Again, no research has been carried out, so to imply that it has is untrue. However we welcome you doing research, even though it should have been done during the pre- consultation, or at the very least before the draft wording of the PSPO was amended after the results of the consultation were known.

“I note the table of parks refers to Dog Control Orders not PSPO's but I will make sure officers see this.”

Unfortunately your officers seem to have misinformed you if you believe that any of the surrounding boroughs have PSPOs already in place. The table indeed does refer to Elmbridge Borough’s Dog Control Order. This will automatically become a PSPO on 20th October, as will any DCO that is still in place anywhere in the country. To be clear, when we have referred to varied limits in parks and open spaces in Elmbridge or Hounslow Boroughs we have been quoting from their DCOs. I’m sorry you have not understood this before.

I realised whilst in bed last night that I completely missed one topic that we discussed on Thursday in my email to you yesterday. The affect that a restriction to 4 might have on surrounding boroughs and areas, and how this would have a negative impact on LBRuT. Let’s take me as an example. I do 8 walks a week, 6 of those are in other boroughs, Elmbridge, Hounslow, Hillingdon and Spelthorne, and occasionally further afield to Woking or Windsor. If LBRuT restrict the number of dogs that anyone person can walk to 4. Surrounding boroughs might follow suit and then what? Let’s imagine that I am lucky enough to get one of the 15 licences currently on offer. As the other boroughs where I currently walk have reduced their limits to 4, where am I going to walk? I would have no option but to do my 8 walks in this borough. That means that I will be doing an additional 6 walks over my current 2 here, a 75% increase. I will not be alone. Any other licenced professional dog walker will also have to do more, or all of their walks in this borough too. Potentially a 75% increase in the use of our parks and open spaces by professional dog walkers.

Best wishes

From: Cllr Pamela Fleming Sent: 09 September 2017 10:24 To: Cc: Allister, David; ; ; ; Cllr Geoff Acton; Cllr Piers Allen; Cllr Helen Lee- Parsons; Cllr Jane Boulton; Cllr Jennifer Churchill; Cllr Meena Bond; Cllr Peter Buckwell; Cllr Alan Butler; Cllr Jonathan Cardy; Cllr Jeremy Elloy; Cllr Margaret Buter; Cllr Tony Arbour (london.gov.uk); Cllr Paul Avon; Cllr Lisa Blakemore; Cllr Mark Boyle; Cllr John Coombs; [email protected]; Cllr Suzette Nicholson; Cllr Sarah Tippett; Cllr Stephen Knight; Cllr Stephen Speak; Cllr Alexander Ehmann; Cllr Annie Hambidge; Cllr Ben Khosa; Cllr Benedict Dias; Cllr Brian Marcel; Cllr Christine Percival; Cllr Clare Head; Cllr David Linnette; Cllr David Marlow; Cllr David Porter; Cllr Gareth Evans; Cllr Gemma Curran; Cllr Geoffrey Samuel; Cllr Geraldine Locke; Cllr Grant Healy; [email protected]; Cllr Helen Hill; Cllr Kate Howard; Cllr Liz Jaeger; Cllr Lord True; Cllr Monica Horner; Cllr Martin Elengorn; Cllr Paul Hodgins; Cllr Petra Sale; Cllr Rita Palmer; Cllr Richard Martin; Cllr Robert Thompson; Cllr Thomas OMalley; Cllr Penelope Frost; Cllr Jean Loveland; [email protected]; 'Vincent Cable' Subject: RE: Meeting with Professional Dog Walkers, Thursday 7th September2017

Dear

Thank you for taking the trouble to meet at Twickenham on Thursday . Anyone who listened to the full broadcast will have heard me indicate at the end that we would be doing more research and if I hadn't been cut off this would have continued to say "into numbers of residents who own more than four dogs" . Although the number of resident dog owners quoted by you and your colleagues has varied, we have listened to what you said and in good faith agreed that if they meet the criteria all the licences will be allocated to the professional dog walkers, whist in the meantime we undertake further research on numbers of resident dog owners.

I note the table of parks refers to Dog Control Orders not PSPO's but I will make sure officers see this.

Thank you for writing

Best wishes

Pamela Joint Deputy Leader LBRuT Cabinet Member for Environment, Business & Community

From: Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:02 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc: Subject: Richmond Park dogs

Dear Mr Fleming I have been asked to on my experiences re parks/dogs by a friend re text below.

Last year we had an awful experience in Marble Hill park where a multiple dog walker could not keep control of one of his gang of dogs (none on leads). My wife and I were with our young grandaughter and the dog (a big labrador type) came and effectively terrorised our quiet picnic and then went over to a big family group and did the same scattering 2 or 3 youngsters all over the place. We challenged the bloke leading the dogs and he just shrugged us off. Also earlier this year we were again in Marble Hill park and were approached by someone from English Heritage about dogs in the park and on relating our experience she mentioned that she had had a huge negative resonse from virtually everyone she had asked, so there must be a lot of relevant data held by English Heritage. Also I in Bushy park regularly and I guess I am pestered at lease once a month by dogs that rush up and get under my feet - in fact last year I had a bad fall across the back off a huge dog doing exactly that! regards,

"I am contacting you to ask for your support in our efforts to protect Richmond’s parks and open spaces of overuse by commercial dog walkers whose numbers are now growing to such an extent that it is making it difficult for members of the public to use our parks at certain times of the day. In July Richmond Council agreed to limit the number of dogs one person could walk to 4, bringing it in line with other boroughs but due to a social media campaign by the commercial dog walkers, the council decided to issue 15 licences to walk 6 dogs, available to borough residents only. The professional dog walkers from Richmond and neighbouring boroughs were furious and are now campaigning for every dog walker that wishes to walk six be issued with a licence. There are well in excess of 150 professional dog walkers that live or visit Richmond and possibly more. Their argument is that there have been only 4 complaints since 2010 and more people support the commercial dog walkers (59% of those responding to the consultation) and therefore the restrictions cannot be imposed according to PSPO legislation. We know that there have been many more complaints and incidences and residents have emailed councillors about the problems, however, they have not been recorded as complaints.

The commercial dog walkers are holding a rally and march on 10th September and have a petition to take to the council meeting on 12th to stop the regulatory decision being ratified and some of the councillors are wavering in their support due to the huge influx of emails from dog walkers opposing the 4 dog limit and restriction of licences.

I am asking if you would support the reduction to 4 and could email those listed below with your support for the reduction to 4 and against allowing them licences to walk 6, and also including any problems or incidents that you have witnessed, as while the councillors are mainly supportive without our reporting problems they have nothing to support the reduction.

Every email will count at this stage so please pass ask friends and family if they too can email the council."

From: Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 10:29 AM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Dog Walking

I am writing in the strongest terms to applaud efforts to limit the number of dogs walked by any one individual to 4, as opposed to 6.

I am out and about on Barnes Common and surrounding area daily and thoroughly enjoy the sight and interaction with dogs and their owners.

However, six dogs per adult is simply not manageable because by their very nature this creates a 'pack'. Of course, when two or three walkers get together to chat, there is potentially 18 dogs (and I have seen this), which makes the space impossible for others to use and is very intimidating.

I have been bitten by a dog being walked by a professional dog walker (reported to David Allister at the time) in a completely unprovoked attack, and a friend has also been attacked - also reported, I believe. In my instance, the walker's response was 'oh, that's the naughty one'. She was helpless to control this dog.

Regularly, when I sit in open spaces on the Common with young (early years) children, dogs bound across and run through our group. This is disruptive and can be upsetting with just one dog that seems pretty big indeed when you are quite small and sitting down - never mind six.

I have written largely about how this impacts on the quiet enjoyment, engagement and education of everyone using these two spaces in particular and of course, the other major impact on the ecologically fragile and nationally scarce Lowland Acid Grassland are the changes wrought through urination, worming tablets, antibiotics and faeces (even when it is picked up) from such an increased number of dogs.

I fully appreciate there must be a balance between everyone using our open spaces, and in my view, six dogs per one adult is truly tipping that balance to the detriment of everyone, and to the environment of this space.

with kind regards

From: Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2017 9:43 AM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Commercial dog walking in Open Spaces

Dear Councillors

As Richmond residents for over fifty years we have always found it such a pleasure to walk in the lovely open spaces and parks. This has no doubt improved our health and well being. However, we are increasingly confronted by people walking several dogs and sometimes taking up the whole width of the path.

We strongly feel that this commercial activity should be reduced and we would like to see the number of dogs per walker being limited to four. We understand that this would be in line with neighbouring boroughs and the Royal Parks.

Yours sincerely

From: Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 6:24 PM To: Cllr Geraldine Locke Cc: Cllr Pamela Fleming; Subject: Changes to dog-walking

Dear all,

I can’t begin to tell you how upsetting it is to hear that Richmond Council is trying to reduce the number of dogs a dog walker is allowed to walk.

Now that Richmond Council is proposing to only grant 15 permits for dog walking (and for only up to four dogs at a time), dog owners like myself will be facing huge difficulties when it comes to caring for their pets. Anyone who owns a dog will understand that dogs can’t just be passed from pillar to post as, like children, this causes distress for the animal. Changing dog walkers is not an easy process and it would be hugely disruptive to dogwalkers if they all had to make alternative arrangements for their pets.

I’ve used and as a first-time dog owner, not only did my dog- walker/sitter look after my dog, but she also gave me advice and training to help me better care for my pet. I’m struggling to understand why Richmond Council want to put these new rules in place. Firstly, this will reduce employment as dog-walkers in the area will be out of business. Secondly, many working dog-owners are going to struggle to find carers for their dogs (and will be forced to stop using dog-walkers they know and trust). Finally, if only 15 permits are granted, surely dogs will have to be collected from further distances, causing more congestion on the roads and increased prices for dog-owners.

As a regular dog-walker in Richmond and Bushy Park, it is rare to see dog-walkers at the moment, and therefore I cannot understand why this has arisen as a problem significant enough to provoke this change. My understand at the moment is that you need a permit to walk the dogs in any of the Royal parks, surely – if any of these dog-walkers are causing problem, it is easy for these to be reported and those individuals would have their permits removed rather than restricting permits in the first-place.

I would really appreciate a response to these concerns to try and help me understand why you feel these changes are necessary.

From: Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 1:53 PM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Support for limits on dog-walking in Richmond Parks

I am writing to support the Council's proposed limit on the number of dogs one person can walk to 4, bringing it in line with other boroughs. I also support the strong restrictions on any licenses that are issued to walk 6 dogs.

You will be aware of the ongoing problems of dog faeces (or dog faeces bags left all over our green areas), as well as poorly controlled and noisy dogs when walked in large numbers, all of which I have experienced. Part of me also questions the very existence of the dog- walking industry, as 'exercising' is a big part of the responsibility of owning a dog and ideally not something that should be outsourced.

Whilst I'm not a Richmond Borough resident, I am a long-term very nearby neighbouring resident who tries to enjoy all of Richmond's open spaces.

Thank you.

______From: Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 1:29 PM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Subject: Commercial dog walkers in open spaces in Richmond

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to complain about the number and behaviour of commercial dog walkers in my area, specifically at Ham lands. We live almost on Ham Lands.

This seems to be a hotspot for them and I don't know how many actually have licenses. It is usual to see several cars a day unloading their dogs - with 6 or more dogs not being unusual. I have never seen one of them 'scoop' up afterwards. Ham lands is enjoyed by many children exploring and playing and this quantity of uncleared up poop is unacceptable.

The sheer number of dogs in one group has also put my elderly mother off walking. She has lived in Ham (as have I) for about 40 years. Recently she was surrounded by a group of dogs and was terrified. There were two dog walkers together with 'umpteen dogs'. When she complained to them and asked them to get their dogs under control they were rude and abusive. She won't walk there now. I have copied her in as she has asked me to complain on her behalf.

I appreciate there were two dog walkers so the number of dogs was unusually large but this happens a lot. I have often seen the dog walkers in pairs - I am sure it makes their job far better to have company but the knock on effect is vast numbers of dogs in one large pack.

I understand there is a vote coming up about the number of dogs a commercial walker can have at any one time. I would strenuously ask that this be limited. We are already a hotspot for commercial dog walkers - if the number allowed is 6 and dog walkers go in pairs then that is 12 at a time. Totally unacceptable!

From my point of view, I find the commercial walkers a nuisance for blocking the road (they seem to park all in one place) near a narrowing of the road near the path to Teddington lock but then so do a lot of non commercial dog walkers who are clearly not residents. Also, when I have encountered a walker with a large number of dogs, they block the sometimes narrow foot paths. This is just irritating and forces the walkers off the path. Fine for me but not for our older residents.

If we are the only borough that does not limit the number of dogs to 4 then all this will only get worse.

I would have complained before but did not know who to complain to.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely

Sent from my iPad

_____

From: Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 11:48 AM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc: [email protected] 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: Saturday, September 09, 2017 9:06 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Dog walking

I support the reduction to 4 dogs per walker or less Sent from my iPhone

From: Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 8:39 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: dogs

Please can you do all you can to help the council to limit the number of dogs per dog walker to 4 which is already too many. Best wishes

Virus-free. www.avast.com

From: Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 8:05 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Dog Walking

People who are too lazy to walk their dog have given rise to irresponsible professional dog walkers. Rich,kind park is being desecrated by these people. It is not a dog pound.

From: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 7:13 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: PSPO Ham Lands

I received an email from HUG regarding the proposed PSPO, and have responded below with my thoughts which I wanted to share with you as I know this is a very important issue for our area.

Kind regards

Dear

Thanks for the email.

I'm a Ham resident and I walk my dog on Ham Lands and the surrounding area everyday. I'm not aware of incidents with dog's walked by the professional dog walkers or the area being overrun with dogs.

I think a licence is a good idea. Although a reduction in the number from 6 to 4 won't change the number of dogs being walked in the area - the same dogs will still need to be walked and the dog walkers will have to alter their schedules and add additional walks to accommodate the dogs in their care.

The licence should ensure dog walkers are insured, registered with HMRC and have the correct transport for the dogs in their care and this can only be a positive thing for all concerned.

My main concern is making sure that any licence is correctly monitored by the authorities otherwise the scheme is pointless. I have reported problems with litter, illegal fishing in the closed season and human waste and these problems continue. I never see our park warden to bring these issues to his attention and rely on our councillors and Richmond Council to take action. Who will be responsible for monitoring the licence holders?

I'm happy to send my email to the list below but wanted to share my thoughts/concerns with you.

Kind regards

Sent from my iPhone, please excuse typos

On 7 Sep 2017, at 22:57, "[email protected]" wrote:

Dear HUG members

Please see below the contents of an email from one of our members re the issue of dog walking and the imminent council meeting when the decision will be made.

Regards

Sent from my iPhone, please excuse typos ______From: Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 11:18 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: dog walking again

Hello Pam

Please don't move from your current dog walkers decision. ManyThanks for your help this far

ps I hope this can be registered as a formal complaint or do you need vituperative language?.

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 one dog 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 my dog goes to the toilet at least twice and I have to be extra vigilant to see her do the 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: Friday, September 08, 2017 5:54 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Fwd: Ham Lands

Dear Cllr. Fleming,

I am writing to express my concern about the impact of commercial dog walkers on Ham Lands. At present there is a limit of 6 dogs per walker which is 2 more than in surrounding boroughs. The result of this is that Ham Lands had become a magnet for multiple walkers from outside the borough. This has led to a number of problems, the degradation of footpaths and the large amount of dog waste being just the most obvious. The paid walkers say they pick up after their dogs, and they do to an extent, but there is no way they can monitor the output of 6 dogs who are off lead. It is also intimidating for dog owners with one or two dogs when we are faced with a pack of 6 or more dogs charging our one. The Lands should be more the enjoyment of all, not just commercial users. The present situation will mean that it will cost Richmond much more money to prevent the degradation of the Lands. The commercial walkers say they cannot make a living with 4 dogs at a time, but commercial walkers in Richmond Park are already limited to 4 dogs and are still in business. Please help local people to retain Ham Lands for the use of all,

Yours sincerely,

From: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 4:45 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming; Allister, David Cc: Zac Goldsmith Subject: Dogs not under control - Tow path beside Hawker Centre

Hello

I need to report another incident involving the same people Mucky Pawz - Dog Boarding | Dog sitters in Kingston, KT2 | DogBuddy

Today I've been on the towpath to Kingston twice. This morning I came across the men in question with several dogs and this afternoon (approx 2.30-3.00) I again came across them. This time the dogs (5 or 6) were all over the towpath and I had to stop I politely asked the *men if they could keep the dogs under control and I was met with a barrage of shouted insults such as "there's a sign there saying that it's for bikes and dog walkers" (?) and asking me if I would have said the same if it was children running about.

Once I had negotiated past the out of control dogs I cycled on and the men shouted out after me. When I was further away I stopped and

On coming home to tonight I passed THE van with the above named driving it. It was parked on and the two obnoxious *men were sitting in it.

Not a nice encounter this afternoon and these people are not pleasant.

From: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 4:18 PM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Dog walking meeting

Thank you for meeting with us yesterday.

I do hope that our points got across and that you consider what we said about increasing the number of licences & working together, so we can ensure that rogue dog walkers are reported & penalised.

I reiterate that there is not enough enforcement present at the moment, which is obvious by the fact that there have been no penalty fines on the dog control order & the dog walkers breaking the rules have been reported by fellow dog walkers. People have stuck to the 6 dog rule, not because of enforcement, but from respect & an understanding for the 6 dog number. If it goes down to 4, people will not adhere to this rule, as they feel like they have not been listened to by their own council.

I think you definitely need to licence everyone & use enforcement & penalisation to ensure only professional/ experienced/ licensed dog walkers use our lands. We would all like to work with you to ensure rogue/ inexperienced dog walkers are made to behave or end up not using our lands.

Many thanks

From: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 9:06 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: dog walkers Please do something to curb the huge expansion in numbers of dog walkers (and the numbers of dogs they walk) that use Ham and richmond. It is completely out of control and needs proper regulation to allow others to enjoy our green spaces with confidence. Yours

From: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 9:10 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc: Allister, David; Zac Goldsmith; [email protected] Subject: Limiting commercial dog walkers to 4 dogs per person

Dear Councillor Fleming

I am writing to ask that in the council meeting on 12th September you support the limiting of commercial dog walkers to 4 dogs per person in line with neighbouring boroughs. Any inconsistency here will have a knock-on effect on Richmond's parks and open spaces.

I do hope you will be able to do this and thank you in advance.

Kind regards

From: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 11:18 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Limiting dog-walkers to 4 animals in Richmond Borough

Dear Cllr. Fleming

As a long-standing resident of Richmond Borough I am writing to urge you to ratify the decision taken in July by Richmond Council to limit the number of dogs one person can walk to 4, which would bring it into line with our surrounding boroughs, and not to give in to pressure from commercial dog-walkers to allow licenses to walk 6.

I moved to my house Ham Lands in , partly because of the proximity of this very special open land which is so very unusual in any urban environment and which should be protected. I have had a dog throughout most of my life and have greatly enjoyed walking it in the local area. However, over the last few years I have become increasingly wary of walking on Ham Lands and the surrounding area because of large groups of dogs walked by commercial walkers who seem to have little control over the animals in their care. In fact, I avoid walking on Ham Lands now after several instances of dogs rushing towards my Labrador, whether they are friendly or not being difficult to ascertain at the time, and which both he and I find intimidating. My dog is now nervous of large groups of other dogs, as am I, especially when, as is often the case, two of these groups are walked together making 12 animals in total. I find this situation totally unacceptable and it spoils my enjoyment of a very lovely local area, which, as a borough resident, is surely my right.

Allowing more than 4 dogs to be walked at any one time can only exacerbate the problem by attracting more and more commercial dog-walkers from surrounding boroughs whose stricter controls preclude them from walking there. This is to the detriment of our borough’s beautiful open spaces which should be preserved for the enjoyment of local residents and the wider community.

Yours sincerely

From: Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 6:26 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming; Allister, David Cc: Subject: Professional Dog Walkers

Dear All

Thank you so much for seeing us yesterday - I'm still a little unsure if we achieved very much but I am still surprised you have not wanted to engage with us since April. I do believe we could have been a valuable asset I preparing your proposals e.g. Not punishing residents with over 4 dogs, which to be honest, is a little embarrassing for you, but cleared up on BBC London after our meeting. As mentioned we could have advised on licensing and enforcement. could have helped with carbon footprint, fauna and flora etc, helped with residents with over 4 dogs etc we are good people doing a good job and most importantly care for the dogs are are entrusted with.

I hope if we left you with anything it was that we would have worked to ensure LBRuT is a centre of excellence for Professional Licensed Dog Walkers.

I'm not sure if 59% on a PSPO, two Petitions, numerous letters and emails cuts it with you but I'm guessing the minority please see below will. As we were told not much point doing any more.

We would happily help regulate Ham which has not happened to date by anyone - but as you've said your happy to work with friends groups (one of which is me) GLBT community, Ham Polo Club but NOT decent hardworking PROFESSIONAL dog walkers - it's just so frustrating in a democratic society to understand why?

We are all very interested in elections in May 2018 as obviously one would hope that democracy wins at the end of the day.

Regards

From: Subject: Re: [HUG-member] Commercial dog walking more than four in Open Spaces? Date: 7 September 2017 at 22:08:34 BST To: "

Dear Thank you for this. I am very against the reduction as it does not address the issue of those who cannot manage their dogs, regardless of numbers. Very often the offenders are private individuals who have not trained their dogs. I walk on Ham Lands every day and I know most of these professionals. As in any business there are one or two who are unscrupulous and to this end I would be more in favour of issuing licences to those who have undergone training, regular CPD, and are fully insured with vehicles suitable for transporting dogs safely. Some of these professionals contribute enormously to the upkeep of the lands in keeping them clean and tidy and so I will be supporting those who are opposed to this change. I think the money would have been far better spent on dealing with the human excrement, tissues, condom wrappers and pornographic material left in the woods regularly which our dogs find and sometimes roll in. This is a huge health hazard to those of us who have dogs. In addition, the litter left by visitors all along the riverbank is quite awful in the summer, and it is we who walk our dogs every day who spent a huge amount of time clearing this up. I have lived in this area for and before that, Petersham and I have never never ever encountered or witnessed any problems with dogs. This issue was raised by one person who has 3 dogs of her own and feels aggrieved at having to share the lands with those who (heaven forbid) should actually make a living from walking and caring for dogs who belong to people who have to go to work and want their pets properly cared for. Reducing the numbers will result in some dogs being left home alone all day as they will no longer be able to afford to use a walker. Some professionals will simply employ someone or make extra journeys which will cause further pollution and more foot fall on the lands which is, I am sure, not what anyone wants. In closing I am very much in favour of policing, controlling with adequate training, licences that are renewed each year to ensure that standards are upheld. Kind regards,

On 7 Sep 2017, at 21:57, [email protected] wrote:

Dear HUG members

Please see below the contents of an email from one of our members re the issue of dog walking and the imminent council meeting when the decision will be made.

Regards

I am contacting you to ask for your support in our efforts to protect Richmond's parks and open spaces of overuse by commercial dog walkers whose numbers are now growing to such an extent that it is making it difficult for members of the public to use our parks at certain times of the day. In July Richmond Council agreed to limit the number of dogs one person could walk to 4, bringing it in line with other boroughs but due to a social media campaign by the commercial dog walkers, the council decided to issue 15 licences to walk 6 dogs, available to borough residents only. The professional dog walkers from Richmond and neighbouring boroughs were furious and are now campaigning for every dog walker that wishes to walk six be issued with a licence. There are well in excess of 150 professional dog walkers that live or visit Richmond and possibly more. Their argument is that there have

been only 4 complaints since 2010 and more people support the commercial dog walkers (59% of those responding to the consultation) and therefore the restrictions cannot be imposed according to PSPO legislation. We know that there have been many more complaints and incidences and residents have emailed councillors about the problems, however, they have not been recorded as complaints.

walkers opposing the 4 dog limit and restriction of licences.

Every email will count at this stage so please forward this to friends and family who would email the council.

The people to email are:

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]>

I knew this would be a hard battle but I had no idea how vociferous these dog walkers would be! Unfortunately, we only have one chance at this. If the dog walkers win this again, as they did in 2012, then we can really say goodbye to our parks. Dog walking is a booming business and with more neighbouring boroughs reducing to 4 we will be completely overrun.

______From: Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 3:11 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Dog walkers limited to 4 dogs

Dear Pamela It has just been drawn to my attention that Richmond Council might not impose a limit of walking 4 dogs at any one time as other Boroughs have done. I am a dog lover and have two of my own and love walking in the area. When I see dog walkers with 6 dogs I feel quite intimidated as, in my opinion this is too many to handle properly and often there are two walkers together...particularly on Ham Lands. I also worry about picking up the mess as carrying bags full of poo from six dogs to the intermittent bins provided is not convenient and I rarely see dog walkers carrying the full bags. In addition if Richmond keep the number to 6 it will encourage dog walkers from other boroughs to come to Ham Lands, Ham Common Woods, Richmond Park etc. I do hope the number of dogs walked at any one time by a dog walker will be reduced to 4 so that everyone can enjoy the open spaces without fear of the impact 6 dogs with one walker currently has. With best wishes

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 7:02 AM To: Allister, David; ; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Dog walkers lincence

Dear All

I am a lucky to have one dog to walk as part of my work, for a family here in Ham.

is a happy Labrador of 3 years old, I have been looking after her since she was a puppy.

She was a very excited and lively puppy and it has been hard work to make her a calm and gentle dog.

I can now walk her of lead, without she is running up or trying to chase bike, jogger, horse, deer and children.

I think this really important, our lovely outdoor space is for everyone to enjoy, not just dog owners/walkers. And as a dog owner/walker we need to be respectful to other people so they can feel able and safe to be outdoor too, without running in to large groups of dogs.

Therefor I am strongly against letting professional dog walkers being allowed to walk six dogs at one time.

As I understand it most London boroughs have a fourdog limited, and I think it’s only fair that Richmond has too.

Yours sincerely

From: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 10:12 PM To: Allister, David Cc: Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; Subject: PSPO and commercial dog walking licences

Dear Mr Allister

You may recall that at the Regulatory Ctte I represented the Friends of Ham Lands in speaking against the proposal to allow 15 licences for up to 6 dogs at one time. I understand that the commercial dog walking interests are being allowed to speak at the meeting of the Council on 12th September in an attempt to overturn the decision of the Regulatory Committee and to allow an unlimited number of licences to be issued for up to 6 dogs at any one time. I and have only just heard about this so in the interest of equity I ask that you present the attached statement to the Council to ensure that they are informed of the range of views amongst residents and users of Ham Lands and no doubt other Parks and open spaces. Whilst there are a range of problems that arise from walking a pack of six dogs the Council should be particularly cognisant of their designation of many of these areas as Local Nature Reserves and in some cases Sites of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and should be advised of the impact this has on habitats and wildlife so that they are able to fulfil these obligations and not be railroaded by a vociferous public gallery.

Yours sincerely

From: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 8:36 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Dog walkers with 6 dogs is TOO MANY!

I have lived in Ham

I have a dog I walk a day.

Recently on two occasions I have been faced with 12 dogs, shared between two dog-walkers.

One group of 12 were walking along the towpath, most of the dogs off the lead, one on the lead who was very vocal.....the towpath was completely overrun by them....people had to stop and wait till they had passed before continuing.

On my way home, I went to cross my most direct route back.

I was confronted by another 12 dogs shared between 2 dog-walkers, again, most of the dogs were off the lead.

I walked home on the road.

Another potentially lovely walk/play with my dog, spoiled by feeling totally intimidated by the amount of 'packs' we had to negotiate, and these are just two events out of many similar.

I know from speaking with other dog owners and families with children, that many local people share my feeling that the area is becoming ruined for them in terms of the numbers of dogs, and the amount of waste produced by them which is not collected by those responsible for them.

Over the past year, the situation in Ham has becoming increasingly unpleasant, due to the Council allowing 6 dogs per dog- walker.....

As this is the only open space in London that allows this number of dogs per walker, people are coming from far and wide in vans, to take advantage of this 'wonderful' offer. 4 dogs per walker is just about bearable, but 6 is ridiculous, and they are certainly not ‘under control’ in the many cases. Some of the dogs must spend more time in the vehicles than actually walking, as some drivers carry more than 6 dogs at a time, and walk them in relays. I would be very surprised if the owners know that their dogs are being ‘walked’ in this way, and approve.

I daily witness ‘walks’ which consist of nothing more than 12 dogs going round St George’s Field a couple of times.

The Council’s lax attitude has made going for a walk on the Ham Lands, the Towpath and the Copse, a challenge instead of a pleasure.

It is time to review your policy and take action before the number of dogs being brought into the area gets completely out of control.

Please register my complaints before the next meeting yours

From: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 5:19 PM To: Allister, David; ; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected] Subject: Commercial dog walkers

I am writing to urge you to restrict the number of dogs that may be walked by any one person at any one time to 4, in line with other boroughs. Walking more than this number is extremely anti-social. It is intimidating, the dogs cannot be properly controlled and there is no way that mess from, say, 6 dogs can be picked up properly, leading to constant fouling of open spaces. Sincerely

From: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 2:09 PM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Restricting dog numbers to 4 per professional dog walker on Ham Lands

To whom it may concern

I wish to add my voice to the many other concerned residents of Ham who are alarmed at the pressure being put on the Council to allow up to 6 dogs to be walked at one time by an individual professional dog walker. Ham Lands has long been the target destination of these professionals due to other parks restricting to 4 dogs.

While my rather unsociable dog walking hours and evenings) means that I do not have many tales myself to tell of behaviour issues among dogs being walked by such individuals, I have been told of several alarming incidents of such. The fact is that many of them meet up and walk along, chatting together while 12 dogs run around the Lands - with the best will in the world I cannot believe that they manage to spot every single one of those dogs when it stops to have a poo and fastidiously pick it up, bag it and throw it in the appropriate bin?

The amount of money that professional dog walkers charge for an hour's walk suggests to me that they could manage to make quite a good living even if restricted to four dogs each. There surely comes a point where it is more important to consider the effect that large numbers of dogs regularly being walked out on Ham Lands has on not only the residents of Ham, but on local wildlife, equestrian sports and health and safety matters (both in respect of personal attacks on other people/dogs/horses and from the risk of toxicaris).

Please give this matter your very careful consideration before making any decision on increasing the number of dogs allowed from 4 to 6.

Thank you for your attention

(dog owner and local Ham resident)

From: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 7:46 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Dog walking

Dear Councillor Fleming

I am not a local resident but I visit the borough once a week and I have become increasingly anxious about people walking large numbers of dogs. The sound of a van load of barking dogs is disconcerting to say the least, when dogs are released and run excitedly many people are frightened and thus discouraged from using the wonderful open spaces of the borough. I have also been told of dangerous incidents where dogs frighten horses and have caused injuries to riders.

I very much hope that the limit of dog walking to four that is currently being considered will be imposed.

Thank you.

From: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 9:41 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Professional Dog walkers , London Borough Richmond upon Thames

For well over 20 years I have walked my successive dogs, largely in Richmond Park, and since , mainly in Ham by the river. In the last few years more and more people have been walking with the maximum allowed , 6 dogs p.p.

NO ONE CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT THEY CAN CONTROL AND WATCH TO PICK UP ALL POO FROM 6 DOGS, ALL THE TIME THEY HAVE DESCENDED IN DROVES UPON HAM BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WALK MORE THAN 4 DOGS ELSEWHERE

A FEW YEARS AGO THERE WERE A HANDFUL OF LOCAL DOG WALKERS WHO WERE KNOWN TO ALL OF US AND WITH WHOM RELATIONS WERE CORDIAL. IT IS NOT SO NOW. THESE NEW PEOPLE COME HERE BECAUSE ONLY HERE CAN THEY WALK MORE DOGS AND EARN MORE MONEY TO THE DETRIMENT OF LOCAL PEOPLE WALKING THEIR ,MOSTLY ONE , DOG

I have received abuse when remonstrating with these people and pointing out piles of poo their dogs have just dropped.

One woman came right up to me to take a close up facial photograph of me . Very aggressive, intimidating and plain nasty.

At the end of the field opposite Ham house one is able to exit to either left or right. It has been not uncommon for me to go towards one exit, only to be confronted by 2 dog walkers together, with 12 dogs (!!!!). And, when I have altered course to go to the other exit to have the same problem!

TWO DOG WALKERS AND 12 DOGS IS COMMON PLACE AND POTENTIALLY VERY DANGEROUS TO OTHER DOGS, PEOPLE ,AND ESPECIALLY CHILDREN.

UNTIL THE ADVENT OF THESE ,OUT OF BOROUGH,DOG WALKERS, A DOG POO BIN AT THE END OF THIS FIELD WAS NOT CONSIDERED !

Much of Ham's charm has been lost, now that it is so plagued by PACKS of dogs and attendant poo

I hope that the Council will bring Richmond into line with others, and ban any more than 4 dogs p.p.

From: Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 8:16 AM To: Allister, David; ; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected] Subject: Dog walking licence

To whom it may concern

I am a local resident of Ham in Richmond and have been for the last . We own labrador dogs and one of the greatest things about living in Ham is the green spaces to enjoy and walk our dogs.

I am sending this email in strong support of enforcing a 4 dog limit for dog walkers as per our neighbouring boroughs.

Something that I DO NOT enjoy is regularly meeting dog walkers with large packs of dogs who are attracted to the open spaces of Ham as we are nor regulating the number of dogs they can walk. Large packs of 5/6 dogs are often intimidating for my dog, not under a suitable level of control and on top of this I have seen dog walkers joining up and walking 10/12 dogs together. Clearly they have an economic motivation to walk as many dogs as possible so they can maximise earnings! Dog walkers are travelling in from other boroughs for the sole reason that they can bring more dogs. We must regulate this or Ham open lands will become overrun and cannot support an endless number of dogs/waste.

Ham open spaces should be regulated in terms of dog walking like our neighbouring boroughs. If you do not regulate it you will attract bad behaviour and irresponsible dog walking. I am friendly with many local professional dog walkers who choose to stick to the 4 dog limit for better control and courtesy of other walkers and dogs.

Please can I urge you to enforce a 4 dog limit in the borough and not succumb to pressure from “dog walker rallies” who are financially motivated to shout as loudly as possible on this matter. I hope that you will be mindful of the actual residents of Ham and take a lead from the regulations in neighbouring boroughs.

Yours Sincerely

From: Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 9:30 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Dog walkers and Parks

Dear Cllr. Fleming

I understand that a number of commercial dog walkers, supported by their trade association, are asking the council to change its mind about restricting the number of dogs per walker to 4 dogs. They are arguing that there have only been 4 complaints.

Since the restriction was imposed in other places we have seen an enormous increase in people who walk dogs for money coming to the Ham Lands. They quite often meet up with other dog walkers and I myself have seen 3 women walking together with 18 dogs between them. As any animal psychologist will tell you dogs behave very differently when in a pack. I have met one woman who regularly walks 7 dogs and, when challenged, always claims that it is an emergency!

As a dog owner I am a bit miffed that I now have to avoid walking at certain times and in some areas of the lands to prevent my border terrier from being terrorised. As a resident of the area for I resent that people who do not live here and are using the nature reserve as a place of business without paying any taxes are depriving me of the use of an asset that I help to maintain. I am also fed up with the increase in dog poo on the paths and tracks around the edge of the lands bordering Riverside Drive where these people park their cars.

If you walk around the South Lands you will be able to see the strange decorations that these people place on the trees! Not wanting to walk around carrying the poo from 6 dogs they instead put it into plastic bags and then hang them from the trees. There has been a notable increase since the professional walkers increased their use of the South Lands.

These people charge approximately £10 per dog per walk. It is a lucrative business for them but given the numbers of stressed dogs that they have to keep on leads one wonders how many of the dogs enjoy the experience.

A maximum of 4 dogs together with an injunction to not join up with other packs should go a long way to providing a solution that will satisfy everyone.

I hope that you and all our elected representatives will give due weight to the needs of the residents of the borough when you consider this matter and confirm the reduction to 4 dogs.

Thank you for your attention

______From: Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 6:26 PM To: Allister, David; ; Cllr Pamela Fleming Su bject: Professional dog walkers

Dear Councillors,

I am writing in support of the reduction of the number of dogs professional dog walkers can take out at one time. I have been using Ham Lands for many years to walk my dog, and find it really unsettling when I meet large groups of dogs. It totally unnerves mine, an elderly Terrier, as large groups frighten her. She cowers until they have overtaken us, and with a full quota the dog walker cannot have control, so I have often had to call the dogs to their attention. I have on occasion had dogs following us, and annoying my dog, after the professional dog walker has passed.

There are times when you have two groups walking together, and there is then a pack walking round. The amount of dog excreta left has grown because, again, with that many, they cannot keep tabs on their behaviour. It is quite common for the dogs to not be on a lead, and wander at their own pace. It is not large open playing field where I walk, and the Lands are being over used because it is the only area that allows that many dogs to walk with one person. It is supposedly a Nature Reserve. The signage says it is, but it is getting worn out by so many using it. If Richmond Park does not allow more than 4 per walker, why do we allow more? Are we less precious than the Park? I hope not. Our area is a very special site and should be allowed to be kept that way. It is a lovely place, if you own a dog, to walk, and we are very lucky to have it on our doorstep, but why should it be less important than Richmond Park, or the other boroughs that have agreed that 4 is enough?

I understand that they say they have only had 4 complaints about the behaviour, but in the circumstances, if I see them in time, I change direction, and if they cause me trouble with their pack, who am I supposed to tell? Them? I do, but do they then report themselves? What can I do, and how do you describe a person with a hoard of dogs if you ring the police? Have you ever tried describing to the police, where on Ham Lands you are talking about? It isn’t easy, and basically you are powerless.

I hope you can appreciate mine and many others viewpoints about this precious space.

Yours sincerely

From: Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 9:48 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc: Allister, David; Murray, Ishbel Subject: FW: Commercial dog walkers on Ham Lands

FYI

From: Sent: 01 September 2017 10:58 To: Subject: Commercial dog walkers on Ham Lands

Dear

I wanted to let you know ahead of your meeting regarding the above that I completely support your plans to reduce the number of dogs one person can walk on Ham Lands to four.

I have lived Ham Lands for It used to be a beautifully tranquil place to walk my dog a day, but over the last two years it has become a chaotic nightmare. which looks out onto Riverside Drive - all through the day but particularly in the early afternoon - a procession of estate cars and vans pull up. Out of each emerge hordes of dogs with up to three walkers. Routinely one or more will escape their handlers and run into the road, and I’ve witnessed several terrible near misses with passing cars. Once on my daily afternoon walk my dog and I encounter what can only be described as a conveyor belt of “professional” dog walkers, each with 6-8 dogs in tow, some on leads but most off. The walkers are usually on their phones and not watching their canine charges. Often they congregate to chat, which means that huge packs of 12 - 18 unleashed dogs mill around making it very hard for one lone dog walker to pass. The loss of one or more dogs by their walkers happens almost daily, resulting in loud and prolonged bellowing for the lost dog. I’ve found numerous lost dogs myself, resulting in more than an hour trying to locate the relevant walker and return them. The dog poo situation is horrendous, and when the walkers do pick up they leave trails of poo bags all over the Lands – theoretically to collect on their way back, but often this never happens. Visit Ham House car park on most days of the week and you’ll see two or three large vans parked, each packed floor to ceiling with crated dogs.

Everyone who lives locally and uses the Lands agrees that the situation is completed out of control and needs addressing urgently – most I’ve spoken to weren’t even aware of the consultation, which I personally did respond to.

I sincerely hope that the council will take steps to curtail what has become a pressing issue for those of us who love and use Ham Lands.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards,

From: Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 7:04 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc:

World - Please see attachments Dear Councillor Fleming

Thank you for your response I think we have our wires crossed as I know this is being put to the Council on the 12th and nothing to do with Cabinet on 7th.

So as to cause you no more trouble please accept this as notice of my intention to attend the meeting on Thursday 7th September 2017 at 1pm. I do hope it will be a mutually advantageous discussion where all parties will feel heard and supported.

Best wishes

On 02 Sep, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Cllr Pamela Fleming wrote:

Dear

Thank you for your email and for resending the information you presented when we met in April. I do actually have it all on file and was rereading it last weekend to check that it had all been included in the Public Information Supplementary Agenda for the Regulatory meeting in July.

Cabinet on 7th September is not considering the matter; it is Council on 12th September and all the councillors have access to the papers that went to Regulatory with your submission.

I thought it would be useful to meet before the decision was taken rather than after, and I am afraid this was the only date and time when the Senior Officers and I all had free slots in our diaries. I am sorry if this is not convenient and if you would all rather wait until after 12th September then I am sure we can find a time of day that suits you better. Perhaps you could confirm to whether or not you would like the meeting to go ahead.

Best wishes

Pamela

From: Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2017 11:21 AM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc: Cllr Paul Hodgins; [email protected]; Allister, David; Zac Goldsmith; Vincent Cable; 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 Penelope Frost; Cllr Richard Martin; Cllr Robert Thompson; Cllr Rita Palmer; Cllr Suzette Nicholson; [email protected]; Cllr Sarah Tippett; Cllr Thomas OMalley; [email protected]; 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; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kelleher, Yvonne; [email protected] Subject: The Way Forward In a Democratic World - Please see attachments

Dear Councillor Fleming

I have attached herewith information given to you back in April and again in July 2017. I thought I would just add that I would be enormously grateful if you could explain to me why you have called a meeting on Thursday 7th September at 1pm. I only ask, as if anything needs submitting to the full Cabinet Meeting, this has to be done by noon on the 4th September and secondly why would you arrange for a meeting at the busiest time of the day? Maybe your preparing us for our lower income!!!

I look forward to hearing from you Kind regards

From: Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 5:32 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Cc: '[email protected]' Subject: Proposed dog walker's licences

Dear Cllr Fleming

I understand that Richmond Council are introducing a licensing system for dog walkers who want to walk more than 4 dogs to a maximum of 6 dogs and you need to live and work in the borough.

I walk and occasionally train and board Labradors in Barnes and considered this good news as it would get rid of the vans full of dogs from further afield and as I rarely walk more than 4 Labradors never got involved in the process, I just assumed I would purchase a licence.

But I now understand that you are considering issuing a maximum of 15 licences for the whole borough.

This is ridiculous and I would like to know if this number is confirmed and if so how to apply for a licence?

From a personal point of view, I have one Labrador who needs walking twice a day plus will normally take up to 3 more making a total of 4 dogs in the morning and 4 in the afternoon. However I consider myself to be in the service industry and my job is to look after my clients and their dogs so if I receive a request to take because children off sick, meetings changed, trains delayed and endless other reasons, I would say of course and walk five dogs. There are many responsible walkers like myself and we will all need licences to provide a reliable service so this number of 15 licences must be increased.

I can understand that the council want to see the end of the large windowless vans full of packs of unruly dogs but ultimately they are the only ones who will continue. They will carry on using the same areas within the borough and just leave dogs to swelter in the vans while they walk 4 for 20 mins and then repeat the exercise It happens now and will just get worse.

FYI the other alternative are the companies that rent fields where in the summer months too many dogs bake in the sunshine and in the winter wallow in mud. And that is on top of the hours in the van during collection and drop offs. BTW the whole system is not good for the dogs running amok all day and can cause dreadful behavioural problems.

Much of the reason we choose to live in such a green borough is that we love to own dogs as it enriches our lives and they are part of the family. And for the same reason we use child minders, nannies etc, we need to use dog walkers, it is part of responsible dog ownership. Local and professional dog walkers provide an excellent service, they understand their dogs, instil good manners, clean up mess and should be encouraged. By not issuing enough licenses to walkers such as me will cause the dogs to suffer, not be socialised and make their owners miserable. Owners and dog walkers who live in the borough all pay their council tax for use of the local green areas, so whether the owner or a dog walker is out with the family mutt they all have a right to be there.

I think it should be noted that many individual dog walkers will just give up if not allocated a licence as it will not make financial sense so ultimately the council will be putting people out of business which is not exactly a vote winner.

I’m sure a bright spark will be saying just do more walks, but I only walk Labradors in Barnes Village and it takes me 30 mins to collect and 30 mins to drop off plus an hour’s walking, so every dog walk is actually 2 hours. For those who pick up in different areas this can take up to an hour to collect and drop off, so each walk can take 3 hours, there is not time in the day to simply add another walk. Plus I normally walk between 21/2 to 4 miles per walk, so 3 walks a day really takes its toll on this

It makes absolute sense to issue dog walking licences for up to 6 dogs to those who live and work in the borough but think they should be available to all those who do a responsible job as we provide a much needed service to our clients/friends and the dogs that we walk.

I feel strongly that allocating a maximum of 15 licences only throughout the Borough should be reconsidered as really don’t think the decision has been thought through and certainly not by those who don’t own dogs and therefore don’t understand their needs.

Thanks for your time

With kind regards,

From: Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 9:29 PM To: Cllr Pamela Fleming Subject: Dog Walking

I have been asked to email you to show my support in keeping the limit of dogs being walked together to the number of FOUR.

Any large a number than this and then control can be difficult and aggression can be a problem.

Thank you

From: Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 10:11 AM To: Allister, David; Cllr Pamela Fleming; [email protected] Subject: Dog Walkers - Keep the limit to four dogs

Dear Sir/Madam

I am very upset to hear that the regulation to limit all but fifteen local dog walkers to walk only four dogs at any given time may not be ratified in the near future. As the owner of one dog and a resident of Ham for nearly it is incredulous to me that could possibly be the case. My husband,myself and my two children all walk our dog along the towpath and around Ham Lands and often have to divert our route to accommodate professional dog walkers who have at least six (sometimes more) dogs, most or all of whom are not on leads.

My own dog was once attacked by two dalmatians who were a dog walker's own dogs. I assume that the pack mentality was greater as at this particular time as two walkers were together and me and my dog were met by twelve dogs. I had to try to scare off the dogs as the walkers did very little to assist me. I reported this to the gentlemen who patrol the fields in the summer and they told me that the dogs should be under control. and that would mean being on leads - they most definitely were not.

Please accept this email on behalf of all the local residents who wish to walk calmly and safely throughout the area in which they reside. The professional dog walkers may be providing a service but they are an ever increasing nuisance and I suspect, also quite greedy if they feel that they must be able to walk six dogs at once.

Yours faithfully