Agenda item

To note the answers to any questions submitted in accordance with County Council Standing Order No. 9.4(A).  One was received by the deadline and is attached.

That the question and written and verbal responses were noted. 

The Chair advised that a question had been received from Councillor Parkhurst.

Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) in respect of Mold Memorial Gardens 

            Will the Cabinet Member for Planning, Public Health and Public Protection please explain why he told Cabinet on 17.10.23 that Mold Town Council had requested that dogs be excluded from Mold Memorial Gardens, and why the Economy and Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee (E&E OSC) was told the same thing on 12.9.23 when in fact Mold Town Council had asked that the PSPO be amended to state, “Dogs must be on a lead at all times”, and in view of the incorrect information given both to the E&E OSC and to the Cabinet would he now agree that the decision to ban dogs from these Gardens should be reconsidered?  

Councillor Chris Bithell responded to the Question as follows:-

            “At both meetings referred to, namely the Environment & Economy Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the 12 September 2023 and the Cabinet Meeting on the 17 October 2023, a Report was presented on the Renewal of Public Space Orders by the Chief Officer for Planning, Public Health and Public Protection. As was the custom and practice, the Cabinet Member for that portfolio usually introduces the report and in doing so will quote and refer to aspects and details from the report which was what I did.

            Aspects of the report and indeed the manner in which the consultation took place had been subject to inquiries, comments, complaints and allegations. These were all currently being thoroughly investigated as part of the Council’s formal Complaints procedure. Given that that was the case, I think that it would be unwise and inappropriate to comment further until that procedure has been completed.”

            Councillor Parkhurst asked why Cabinet and the Overview & Scrutiny Committee had been told misleading information and if a mistake had been made why had it not been acknowledged. This matter was causing concern to elderly people. When Mold Town Council asked for dogs to be kept on leads why were the committees told that the Town Council wanted dogs to be banned. He referenced comments made that the Police and Crime Commissioner had been consulted but after contacting the Police and Crime Commissioner he advised that he had not been consulted. He also asked why the Equalities Assessment from 2023 read as a copy and paste complete with typing errors from 2020 to which he  would appreciate a response from Councillor Bithell.

            Councillor Attridge sought clarification from the Chief Officer (Governance) that if the Council were undertaking a formal complaints procedure at present would it be unwise to discuss this further until the outcome of that formal complaint was known. His concern was if Cabinet had misled Scrutiny and members of the public then this was a serious issue.

            The Chief Officer (Governance) firstly reminded Members on the process around questions with the questioner having the right to ask one supplementary question either directly arising out of the original question or arising out of the answer provided. Councillor Bithell had confirmed in his answer to the original question that there had been complaints made which was why he believed that Councillor Parkhurst had raised this matter. He understood why Councillor Attridge had asked the question and advised that it was not appropriate to discuss it. The same complainants who had contacted Councillor Parkhurst had also raised formal complaints through the Council’s Corporate Complaints procedure and had made a number of allegations which were being investigated. Until such time as it was known if they were factually accurate it was not sensible to answer the question at this point in time. The Council acting through its Cabinet passed Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO) at its meeting in September and those Orders were in place and were validly made Orders until such time as they were overturned by a Court of Competent jurisdiction. The Council may, if it wished, revisit whether those Orders should be made or should be changed and that would be a decision that would be taken when the complaints had been considered with all Councillors informed of the outcome. He confirmed that Councillor Parkhurst had received a holding response but in due course a response would be provided to him and his residents and other residents in other wards outlining what the Council was proposing to do as a result of those complaints.

RESOLVED:

That the question and written and verbal responses were noted.