Minutes:
a) Question from Councillor Birch to The Leader, Councillor Clarke MBE.
“Do the Conservative Group agree that parish and town councils play an important role in local democracy by providing highly local representation, supporting community initiatives and giving residents a dedicated voice on matters affecting their area?”
The Leader said yes.
The Mayor asked Councillor Birch if he had a supplementary question.
The Mayor ruled on the supplementary question by Councillor Birch and it was rephrased and put as:
“Councillor Clarke, you answered 'yes' to my question. Does that extend to the provision of a council in West Bridgford?”
The Leader stated that the original question asked if parish and town councils played an important role in local democracy, and as West Bridgford did not have a town council at the moment; his answer was therefore related to the original question, not to whether there was any potential that West Bridgford had a town council or not.
b) Question from Councillor Polenta to Councillor J Wheeler.
“I recognise that, in granting the 25-year lease of part of West Park to Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club, and the consultation process that preceded it, the Council complied with its statutory obligations under Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972. I also acknowledge that a planning-style consultation was not legally required and that no formal objections were received during the statutory consultation period. However, since the lease commenced, I have received a number of representations from residents, particularly regular dog walkers, who are concerned about the enclosure of an area that had previously been open and accessible. Many describe this space as more than just a recreational area, highlighting its role in supporting daily routines, informal social contact, and longstanding community networks. A consistent theme in these responses is surprise that they were unaware of the consultation process and therefore felt unable to comment before the decision was made.
Given the apparent disconnect between the lack of formal objections during the consultation process and the concerns now being raised, I wonder if the Council considers whether the practical implications of the lease were communicated clearly enough. For example, perhaps it could have been made more explicit that the area would become enclosed and managed as a dedicated sporting facility, alongside clearer guidance on how residents could make formal representations. While I recognise that statutory requirements were met, does the Council accept that there are lessons to be learned about how proposals affecting public open space are communicated, and will the Council consider a more proactive approach to ensure residents feel informed and able to engage in future consultations?”
Councillor Wheeler advised that the Council followed necessary processes, including public notices, press articles and a site meeting, which had included Ward Councillors. He believed that the changes at West Park had maximised site usage, whilst ensuring that the open space remained open to the public. A balance had to be struck, with lots of available green provision close by, and he confirmed that no comments had been received at the time. Councillor Wheeler stated that the Council constantly looked at engagement with residents and would continue to do so, through its updated Communications Strategy.
The Mayor asked Councillor Polenta if she had a supplementary question.
“Will the Council reflect on whether future proposals affecting public open spaces could benefit from additional communication or engagement, such as on-site notices or direct engagement with principal stakeholders, such as the dog walkers, or other informal park users, so that residents not only have the opportunity to make formal representations and object, but also feel genuinely involved in decisions affecting public spaces that they value?”
Councillor Wheeler reiterated that the Council had followed correct procedures and confirmed that the Council constantly reviewed how it engaged with the public, and he referred to the Council’s excellent communications record. He acknowledged that some residents had expressed concerns, and officers had been engaging with them, and would continue to do so.
c) Question from Councillor Gowland to Councillor Inglis
“Would the Borough consider taking necessary measures to introduce laws or Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) where appropriate to require one person not to be in charge of four or more dogs on land managed by Rushcliffe Borough Council?”
Councillor Inglis confirmed that the Council had introduced a dog related PSPO in 2022, which had been amended in July 2025 and was in force for three years. That PSPO already included a provision for only walking four dogs in specific locations, and on other Council owned public open space land the PSPO restricted the number of dogs to six. This number was chosen following extensive feedback and consultation and the opportunity to consider any further change would take place when the PSPO was reviewed and potentially renewed in two years’ time.
The Mayor asked Councillor Gowland if she had a supplementary question.
“Can I ask the Council to do some publicity on social media about this and also engage with other local landowners where people walk dogs, to try and raise the issue because this is a growing issue?”
Councillor Inglis confirmed that any issues would be addressed, as everyone wanted safe environments, hence the establishment of the PSPO in the first place.