Councillors' Attendance Statistics

Agenda and minutes

Regulatory Committee
Wednesday, 13 February 2013 7:00 pm

Venue: Salon - York House. View directions

Contact: Gary Lelliott; 020 8891 7275; Email: gary.lelliott@richmond.gov.uk 

Note: Meeting moved from 27 February 2012 

Items
No. Item

14.

APOLOGIES

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Lisa Blakemore and Councillor Bill Treble.

15.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and the nature of the interest being declared.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

16.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 52 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2012 – attached.

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2012 be received and approved and the Chairman be authorised to sign them.

17.

DOG EXCLUSION ORDER - PETERSHAM MEADOWS pdf icon PDF 74 KB

This report considers the consultation results in relation to the proposed implementation of a new Dog Exclusion Control Order to exclude dogs from Petersham Meadow between the months of April and October inclusive.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Head of Parks and Open Spaces introduced the item.  The dog exclusion order had been brought back to the committee as there had been responses to the consultation.  Enforcement of the order was to be carried out under a new contract for the management of the borough’s parks, although this would initially focus more on informing dog owners of the summertime ban, as opposed to issuing fixed penalties.

 

It was explained that the order was being recommended for approval because the response rate to the consultation had been low.  The historical practice of permitting cattle to graze on the meadow was also something that should be protected.

 

Various other routes between Petersham and Richmond were discussed along with how these could be signposted.

 

Councillor Williams made representations to the committee and confirmed that there were various routes dog owners could take between Richmond and Petersham.  He also clarified the layout of the area.  Details of public meetings held in two previous years were given, which discussed the issue of dogs and cattle on the meadow, along with the associated safety concerns, with Councillor Williams stating that the order was well supported locally.

 

Views were sought from committee members, who were generally in favour of the dog exclusion order, with the provision of suitable levels of publicity for the change, along with informative signage that detailed alternative routes for dog walkers.

 

RESOLVED that:

 

  1. a Dog Exclusion Order under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 be made to exclude dogs from Petersham Meadow between the months of April and October inclusive subject to limited exceptions such as assistance dogs for registered blind persons;
  2. the order come into force on 11March 2013;
  3. clear signage be placed on the site, which detailed alternative routes for dog walkers.

18.

GAMBLING ACT 2005: REVISED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES UNDER THE GAMBLING ACT 2005 pdf icon PDF 59 KB

To consider the revised statement of principles under the Gambling Act 2005.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Licensing Team Leader introduced this item.  This statement of principles was the same as that tabled before an earlier committee, prior to it being consulted upon.  It would be the council’s third statement of principles, since the inception of the Gambling Act 2005.

 

Following questions from the committee, the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that the low response rate was expected; previous consultations had failed to garner many responses.  The Achieving for Children venture with the Royal Borough of Kingston was not expected to affect the sections relating to child safety and the protection of vulnerable people because much of what was in the policy was also provided for in national guidance from the Gambling Commission.

 

The ‘nil policy’ did not exclude applications for casinos, although there was a presumption the authority would refuse such requests.  The Gambling Commission also had a say on the number of such establishments throughout the country.

 

RESOLVED that:

 

  1. the no casino resolution be endorsed;
  2. authority be delegated to the Licensing Team Leader to make any inconsequential amendments to the policy prior to its submission to Council;
  3. theStatement of Principles be recommended to Council for approval on 26 February 2013.