Alderley Edge Parish Council is calling for signs to be re-installed in the park informing people that the dogs should be kept on leashes.
Speaking at this week's Parish Council meeting, Cllr Melanie Connor said "I've had three complaints about two small dogs that have been bitten by big dogs that are running wild in the park. Where have all the signs gone saying dogs on lease? There used to be signs all around that have disappeared."
Other councillors agreed that they should contact Cheshire East Council to request that the signs are re-instated.
Cllr Keegan said "Let's get the signs up for a start and have a period of controlling by park wardens."
However, Cllr Duncan Herald disagreed with this decision because keeping dogs on leads is not included in the park bylaws. He said "The nice thing about our park is it is largely live and let live - everyone gets on fairly well.
"There is nothing in the park bylaws to say dog on leashes, it says no cycling, no vehicles but nothing about dogs. It is illegal to put signs up saying dogs on leashes."
Melanie Connor added "What is also getting people really annoyed is grown men playing cricket and putting stumps into the bowling green - it is driving people potty. Kids are running around and messing about on bikes on the bowling green, dogs are running around on the bowling green.
"It's a bowling green and nobody seems to understand there is a whole park there and football field where they can let dogs run around, why do they have to let them run around by the bowling green."
"There is only 5% who misuse the bowling green and make life worse for the other 95%."
What do you think? Should dogs be allowed off the lead in Alderley Edge Park? Share your views via the comment box below.
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Park Wardens? on what planet is C.E. going to appoint and pay for Park Wardens?
If there is a bye-law introduced, to force dogs to be on a lead, then please remember, you can't 'pick and choose' from the bye-laws; those Councillors who try to enforce dog leads, can get themselves into the park and enforce, for example, the no cycling bye-law; I rather doubt that I'll see any Parish Councillors in the park telling mothers to get their children off their bikes ! Bit of a vote loser that !
Live and let live; all the park users get on pretty well, without Parish Councillors sticking their noses in; haven't they more important stuff to get on with! e.g. get a public toilet in the Park?
If runners are on the bowling green... if kids play cricket on the bowling green... if kids cycle on the bowling green... why pick on dogs?
Annual maintenance cost of bowling green is £7402.53 (Mowing, inspecting, brushing...)
Annual maintenance cost of bowling hut is £2651.69 (Toilet Maintenance)
2012-2013 Response jobs
Repairs to roof 84.00
Replace gutters 438.33
Cistern overflowing 42.00
Total 564.33
Annual PPM
Fire Extinguisher Check 16.54
Legionella 600.00
Asbestos 450.00
5 Year
Fixed wire test due 14/15 376.94
Therefore the Bowling green cost total £11760 per year to the Parish.
Yet revenue from the bowling green from 4 teams (4 x £107.30) = £429.20
Total park cost including £32,543 but £11760 of which is spent on the bowling green that is only used by 4 paying teams.
The ROI for the amount spent on the bowling green is disproportionate to the population of park users the revenue from the 4 teams are no way covering the cost of just several weeks of usage.
This is ridiculous with so much demands yet the teams are not even paying their fair amount for the cost of maintaining the bowling green.
My suggestion is for the bowlers to move to another venue around the village (Sports club)the turn the green to general usage and the parish council can reduce the cost of maintaining the bowling facilities in almost total subsidy. We can then turn the hut into a café with toilet facilities open to all!
There is already a sign up leading into the park from the Bowling Green, admittedly hardly readable, but readable. Enforced by the late Macclesfield Borough Council. Which reads, “NO CYCLING DOGS MUST BE ON LEASH.” A sign has been removed off the oak tree past the Bowling Green, which was on there since the 60’s which said “Dogs must be on lead” No one is picking and choosing. No one is picking on dogs. It is dogs picking on Dogs and God forbid nobody’s child!
I am an owner of a puppy. The puppy has been learning to walk on its lead for the last few weeks. It barely weighs 2.5kgs. Already a dog off its lead has attacked him and bitten him and several larger, heavier dogs all off leads have jumped on him. By your comments I presume some councillors have an agenda of their own and do not wish to listen to some residents of Alderley Edge. By your comments it does not bode well taking pops at your fellow councillors. Not a vote winner that!
There are many owners chatting together lovely yes and so they should , but while they are, they are paying no attention to their dogs who are off their leads merrily chasing around on the bowling green and scaring other dogs and their owners or even messing in the park for other people to walk in. .
Cheshire East may not have put in strict guidelines of what it means control is , but if you go to the Gov UK on the internet as an over view it states
Out of control
Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
• injures someone
• makes someone worried that it might injure them
A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if:
• it injures someone’s animal
• the owner of the animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal
This is for leads on in the park and only in the park. Just common sense from the councillors who are in agreement with it. A vote winner for me. Seems to me an oversight has been made on changeover to Cheshire East as they tried to replace all signs to include the Cheshire East logo? Seems to me they need replacing, surely not illegal as already there.
The costs of the park which you have quoted are clearly not true. If you send me a copy of the FOI reply I will take it up with Cheshire East, Parks and Open Spaces. This feels like a massive recovery of overheads - across the whole of Cheshire East - with Alderley Edge Park being allocated a disproportionate charge.
There is no way in the world that such sums are spent on the bowling green, and I see no reason why skewed figures should be used to attack a public amenity such as the bowling green.
I understand your concern with your small puppy.
You mention that your puppy was attacked and bitten. Have you called the police? As this is a very serious accusation, you should report it. What action have been agreed with the other owner?
It is important for you to report it to ensure corrective action is set and to prevent the same happed again.
But putting a blanket enforcement is almost like keeping the dog tied up and then caged up at home. I wonder how the council can keep a happy medium to these complaints and with Animal rights group. Perhaps the council may be open to spend money on providing a dedicated dog park that are fenced off and maintained. As there are more dog owners / walkers than bowlers, I am sure it will be well justify for the council to find the budget.
Thank you for pointing out that there are signs - there have been signs, some of which were removed - and I know from asking the officers responsible for the park that there ought to be signs in the park about dog control.
I will see if some warden visits can be arranged and tackle those responsible for breach of the regulations.
All the figures came from FOI request which is available in the public domain:
http://bit.ly/1njkHFa
I have no intention of attacking the amenity but it just seems unfair for should disproportionate of the park expenditure used so rarely and by so few. Where as dog walkers use the park 365 days a year no matter rain or shines. Yes even on Christmas Day and New Year's Day, our 4 legged friends still need their walks.
With regard to Ricky Lees questions re dog being bitten>
• I was in shock having to intervene and save my puppy from injury, later finding it was a small puncture mark. Luckily the pup had its coat on.
• The person in question knows who they are if indeed they remember it. Smelt strongly of whisky. I thought about following the person but because of what had happened decided against it
• I had no mobile phone with me. If I had rang 101 the response would have been too late. Perhaps I could have taken a picture and named and shamed on Alderley Edge.com
• If I had noticed blood at the time I might have reacted very differently.
• There were no other witnesses
The fact is if this dog had been on a lead it would have been prevented. There is no need for dogs to be tied up.as you put it. There are many open spaces for dogs to run if you look carefully enough. One is the garden. This is simply respecting the Park and all people who take pleasure in it going about their daily lives without fuss mess or bother, all ages and walks of life.
Your comments re the bowling club are just offensive. Whether it cost £1000 or £25,000 is irrelevant. The bowling green and club has been around the 50 plus years I have lived in Alderley Edge and has been part of the village life. Bringing young and old able and not so able together with other communities in and out of the area.. It’s called enjoying life, a sport you can participate in and getting together.
If you need a café I can suggest many in the village. I’m sure the café owners would be really appreciative of another café opening in the park especially with the rent and high rates they pay to open up a business.
As for a fenced up field never had one so why do we need one now?
Is the park really a large enough area to exercise a large dog anyway?
It's always those that are anti social that ruin it for everyone else. If you know you have a dog with issues then you have no right to be allowing it to run free on a public park to be a danger to other dogs/children. It should be on a lead. Again it's always the same sort of person who would allow a nasty dog to run free in a park and attack other dogs.
The sign also says 'No Cycling'!
I guess to be fair this needed to be enforced too.
It's what the sign says. If the council decide to enforce the sign it's only fair to enforce the banning of cycles in the park. Well, that will solve the problem of kids riding bikes on the bowling green.
To be honest, I'm actually surprise that the council is wasting effort on (none issue), yet neglect resolving the issue on poor parking issue that are a death trap at around all 3 of our school. There is more chance that someone get seriously injured during school runs than being attack by dogs in the park.
Its all huff and puff anyway, as the PC has no authority over the park, as the park is 'owned' by Cheshire East.
This includes the cost of the bowling green, pavilion and toilets at almost £20,000.
The toilets alone, for cleaning, locking/unlocking and (don't faint Lucy), but the provision of loo rolls at £552. totals £3,203
I wonder how these costs be justified when access to the toilets is only available to an exclusive few for a few hours a week and barred to everyday users.
The two opposing views seem to come down to:
a) dogs off lead, free to foul where they like, bite who they like and close the bowling green.
or
b) dogs properly controlled, on leads, and cleaned up after they mess, plus retain a facility like the bowling green, because it is easier to maintain than create from scratch.
My view is that I support b) very strongly, and I will be encouraging Cheshire East to enforce the bye-laws (which were inherited from Macclesfield Borough Council).
2. no mention of the costs of the bowling green, after an earlier comment that the costs quoted by Ricky Lee were 'clearly not true'... so does that mean that the costs quoted are in fact accurate?
3. a) above is nonsense... 'foul where they like' is silly as the dog owners clean up. and 'bite who they like' is just woeful foolishness; show me people who have been bitten please... 'close the bowling green' is a what-the-hell does that mean comment.
b) above remarks on the bowling green; if Councillors would care to actually visit the green, they would find that there is no indication of alleged runners on the green and no sign of dog mess but he will find signs that the green is in a very poor condition because it has not been as well maintained as it should be.
4. Councillors will 'enforce the bye-laws'... no. 6 = dog be under..proper control... no. 7(i) no game played on areas other than set aside for that game... so get down there and throw the footballers off the tennis courts and throw the ball players off the bowling green...no.4 no vehicles; that'll cock-up the May Fair?... etc. etc.
Pick a cliche... 'live and let live' or 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
You are not solving a problem, just alienated a group of law abiding dog owners. Because the few 'irresponsible' owners won't care at all.
Again the focus to please the bowlers, it seems like effort and resource is being wasted to please a small group of fair weather park users.
To be honest, unless you have a wardens at the park 24/7, these elusive bad owners will still be leaving dog mess everywhere!
By the way, many of us dog walkers do actually pick up 'Cold Poo', guess pushing out the responsible dog walkers you may find lots more dog mess in park.
Further if signs go up requiring dogs to be on lead, then the signs saying 'no cycling' will also have to be obeyed... in the last year or so, I have been bumped into by a child on a bike three times... the parent/s rush over to apologise and I just say 'don't worry, I'm not fragile and kids have to learn to cycle and why not in the park'... I think that to get dogs on leads, at the expense of not allowing kids on bikes is a duff deal; do you not agree?
I repeat what I wrote earlier; instead of faffing on about dogs, concentrate on getting a public toilet in the park and a drinking fountain in the park... when the PC put £5,000 on one side to commemorate the Queen's jubilee, I suggested that said money should be spent on a drinking fountain but alas not enough were interested; so I was trying to lead by example there?
All I have done was report my puppy being attacked in the park and it has escalated to this.
Explain why there is a sign clearly stating that dogs should be on leads if there is no said "bye-law".
the sign is there pointed out to you days ago
I'm a responsible dog owner and spent my walks in the park picking up after them and anyone else's dogs whose mess I see, I also pick up bottles, crisp packets, discarded cigarette packs, sweet wrappers , used handkerchiefs and on occasion human excrement from those unable to access the bowlers private WC.
All in all I feel like a womble , worse an unpaid womble crossed with a park keeper. I do this because I appreciate the amenity that the park represents.
The dogs are on leads if they are potentially a nuisance to other park users through being too friendly otherwise they are legally off their leads.
I also use the park at times when only other dog walkers are around,
Why you want to run a grumpy old man campaign against me and my fellow dog walkers I don't know. It simply makes you appear like just another power crazed petty egomaniac local councillor...an impression that I'm sure would be an inaccurate characterisation.
Indeed almost as inaccurate as your one size fits all apparent contempt for law abiding dog owners and their charges.
Please stick to more useful activities
I am puzzled; in what way have I been rude or unprofessional? How exactly have I disrespected anyone?
I have no idea who put up signs (I assume many years ago) that dogs should be on a lead; if you approach C.E. I am sure that they will give you a copy of the bye-laws, as that is where I got my copy. Then you will see for yourself that there really is not any reference to leads.
I suspect that the signs go back to the bad old days when there were signs everywhere, forbidding everything (remember when humans were forbidden to actually walk on the grass?) and the notices were usually 'by order of the Town Clerk'.
I don't represent the Parish Council, I try to represent people.
I know that very many people read what gets written on here, but sadly too few actually take part. I would just love it if many, many people wrote in to express their views and then if there was a clear majority, one way or the other, either I would have to shut up or the anti-dog people would have to shut up?
Complaints about dogs, runners, footballing children, cycling, cricket playing and even picnickers on the green.
A simple solution; put up a fence around the bowling green.
There is already a fence around the area reserved for young children, so a precedent.
How much can a simple wooden palisade fence cost? Only about 3 feet high?
I would be pleased if our C.E. councillor would undertake to approach C.E. with a request for a fence.
Do you agree?
Secondly, have you asked the bowling teams and green keepers about the fence? I think that might be a start.
You have gone off on a tangent, this forum is about dogs on leads.
The cheapest option to stop dogs going on the bowling green etc. would be to keep them on a lead, obeying the sign on entry to the park.
1. I believe my behaviour has been fine; you clearly disgree (though you seem less than keen to actually explain how) so let's leave that.
2. I can't ask the bowling teams anything as they are not bowling at the moment and have not contributed to this.
3. This forum has gone off on several tangents, all on its own. The tangent about protecting the surface of the green; why are you only 'picking up' on a possible dog contribution and ignoring what other people have written about children playing football/cricket and cycling on the green etc.? Those damages put any possible dog harm into a minor thing.
4. Why oh why do you keep ignoring the fact that the bye-laws do not order dogs to be on a lead? Any sign saying that dogs are to be on a lead is immaterial as in the absence of a bye-law, what legal enforcement is there in any notice.
5. If you advocate obeying notices, are you therefor in favour of stopping cycling in the park, as notices request? I am not!
6. Why ask green keepers? My view is that if Bowlers/park users/people of the village/etc. want a fence around the bowling green, then C.E. should provide one and the opinion of green keepers is immaterial.
Do you favour a fence around the green? If so are you willing to ask your C.E. councellor to approach C.E. to get one errected?
Everyday our children is in danger of being run over by cars, the reason is that these ALL DAY PARKERS are the village have increasing parked in areas near the school which was previously used by parents on school runs. This makes the driving and visibility for drivers very difficult as there are too many parked cars, 4x4s and vans.
Everyday the parking issue is not sorted out, it adds to the probability of kids being seriously injured.
Councillors please use our taxes and your time wisely and focus on REAL ISSUES!
If a child get hurt, you would need to explain to the parents why the council has not yet sorted out this KNOWN ISSUE.
"Dogs fouling wherever they like" you say thats silly the owners clean up after their dogs
Completely untrue only this afternoon (22nd March) I watched a large dog do a huge mess in the middle of the grass where a number of small children were playing. The owner just clipped the lead onto the dog and left the park. I got a barrage of abuse when I challenged him. If only I had taken a photo to shame him. Disgusting!
Hey ho as Duncan so elegantly puts it, “live and let live.”
Dog off lead in the morning runs out of the park and meets my dog half way up Redesmere Drive without owners. The owners looking a little frantic come out of the park and later reunited.
Sunday around mid -day passing the bowling - green. Lovely couple with very cute dog throwing its ball on the said bowling green.
Approx. a week ago the dog who bit my dog was in the park again off the lead. The dog comes running for mine. I rush to pick my pup up and the other dog snaps. No contact this time. This time I advise the person to keep it on a lead and foolishly they say there is no
problem with their dog. I remind the person of the incident previously the owner hurled abuse and told me to get the police.
But hey ho, “if it’s not broken don’t fix it!”
To quote another cliché “Ignorance is Bliss”
If an owner doesn't pick up poo, please do name and shame.
The majority of dog owners are as unhappy with the few as anyone.
To put mess in context; this a.m. I and two other dog owners picked up quite a lot of drink cans, bottles, coffee cardboard containers etc. Dogs have an 'excuse', but humans don't?
I understand that bowling greens in Macc. are fenced; so why not A/E ?
There are complaints that dogs, children (footballers & cyclists) & adults go onto the bowling green; a fence would stop that?
If its broken, fix it?
I spend time picking up other people's dog mess as well as clearing up after the dogs for which I am responsible. People with dogs, big or small, are not all bad. Those who are should be taken to task - by the proper authorities if they are not willing to listen to a polite request.
Just like the parking issue - it is selfish, lazy, thoughtless behaviour from a few, please don't tar responsible people with the same brush.
Report irresponsible people as necessary as Duncan has suggested - moaning and not taking appropriate action gets nobody anywhere...