Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Frances Bouchier and Councillor Brian Miller.

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 whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

Agenda item 6. REVISION OF BYELAWS AND CONTROL ORDERS IN PARKS AND OPEN SPACES

Councillor Salvoni and Councillor Thornton declared personal interests by virtue of being dog owners, although neither of them would be affected by the proposed dog control order.

Councillor Jones declared that she had pre-determined her view on the proposed byelaw to address illegal boat moorings and had campaigned previously for such measures to be introduced.  Councillor Jones withdrew from the committee for the duration of this item.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2010 attached.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2010 be received and approved, subject to the following amendments, and the Chairman be authorised to sign them:

• Amend “recommendations in the report” to read “recommendation of a nil policy”.
• Amend “such establishments” to read “sex establishments”.

Representations were heard under relevant agenda items.

The purpose of this report is to decide whether to amend the Definitive Map and Statement of Rights of Way by way of a Definitive Map Modification Order and to request that the Committee amend the scheme of delegation to grant delegated authority to the Assistant Director for Environment to deal with similar future applications.

The Assistant Director for Highways and Transport introduced the item and clarified the location of Cricket Lane.

The committee was advised that there already appeared to be a delegation to the Assistant Director, but because of long-standing conflicting statements in the Council’s Constitution, there was also reference to it being a function performed by the Regulatory Committee.

Following questions from members of the committee, the meeting was advised that:

• Officers would work to have the Definitive Map amended as quickly as possible, although there was a right of appeal against the decision.
• This decision would have a generally positive impact on residents, although it would affect the interests of the individual employing the private clamping company.
• The amendment to the Definitive Map would mean that the entire width (7 metres) of Cricket Lane would be designated a public right of way.
• Amendments to the Definitive Map were not common occurrences, with around a maximum of one or two taking place each year.
• The long-term delegation to the Assistant Director being proposed would mean that only additions could be made to the Definitive Map.

The committee felt that because this was an uncommon area of work, it should be able to be involved in making any decision on the matter.

It was proposed that councillors, who were in a ward where an amendment to the Definitive Map was being made, should be able to request the item be heard by the Regulatory Committee.

RESOLVED that:

1. Authority be delegated to the Assistant Director for Highways and Transport to consider all the relevant evidence and decide whether to modify the Definitive Map and Statement of Rights of Way for Right of Way 285 (Cricket Lane, Hampton Hill) via a Definitive Map Modification Order.
2. That Council be recommended to amend the Constitution to allow the Assistant Director for Highways and Transport to make additions to the Definitive Map and the Statement of Rights of Way, unless a relevant ward councillor request the item be heard by the Regulatory Committee.

This report details two proposed revisions - Mooring Byelaws and Dog Control Orders - that if approved will ensure the Council has a strengthened position with regards to enforcement.

The Parks Operations Manager introduced the item.  He said that dog control orders had been introduced in the past, but they did not refer to the number of dogs that could be handled at any one time.  The control order was aiming to address the issue of professional dog walkers taking sometimes 20+ dogs out at any one time.  This was now occurring more frequently as neighbouring authorities already had similar measures in place.

The Parks Operations Manager added that there had been particular concerns about illegal moorings, resulting in many complaints to the local authority about litter and the general behaviour of those mooring.  The introduction of a byelaw would allow for a full procedure leading to the removal of any illegal moored vessel.  Kingston upon Thames did have such a byelaw in place, which appeared to be increasing the level of illegal mooring in Richmond upon Thames.

Mr Mike Pemberton, on behalf of the Broom Water Residents’ Association, made representations to the committee, which have been summarised below:

• Most of the issues being experienced by residents had been on a small section of the riverbank near Broom Water
• Anywhere between 15 and 25 vessels would moor of any one night.
• There should be co-ordination between all relevant authorities such as neighbouring councils, the police and the Environment Agency.
• The recommendation in the report was fully supported by residents.

Councillor Tania Mathias made representations to the committee, which have been summarised below:

• The issues arising were not caused by genuine river users who respected the surroundings, but about those who chose to moor illegally and cause general disturbances and litter.
• There were also unproved allegations that those mooring were dumping household and human waste in the river.
• There was also an increase in crime locally, since the illegal moorings were established.

Following questions from the committee, Councillor Mathias advised the meeting that:

• The issues were being experienced between Kingston Bridge and Teddington Lock.
• There were up to 30 illegal moorings each night.
• The boat owners often changed where they moored on a rotational basis.
• She felt Reading Borough Council was a good example of enforcement action being taken against illegal moorings.
• Some residents had reported being intimidated, occasionally involving dogs on the riverside.
• This was an issue that was an issue regularly reported to the council, police and Environment Agency.

The Parks Operations Manager responded to questions from the committee:

• The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames did have a byelaw relating to illegal moorings.
• It was hoped there would be movement on introducing a byelaw for illegal moorings within 6 months, although it was dependant on agreement from the Secretary of State,
• The proposed dog control order would restrict walkers to four dogs, with two dogs on leads, and 2 off at any one time.
• Four dogs at any one time was deemed an appropriate and controllable number for a walker.
• The dog control order was aiming to address the issue of up to 30 dogs being walked at one time.
• The byelaw would cover the entire borough, so it would not lead to displacement.

RESOLVED that:

1. Authority be delegated to officers to instigate a process of introducing a new byelaw to deal with the issue of unauthorised moorings on council owned land.
2. Authority be delegated to officers to instigate a formal consultation on a proposed Dog Control Order, with representations in respect of this to be considered by the Assistant Director of Environment, in consultation with the Director of Environment and the Strategic Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning.