The (changing) thoughts of chairman Wells (part 3)

Another post from Cllr Olly Wells, although to be fair at least this one is about Knaphill rather than Burma or the Imperial plunder of British museums.

What readers of his blog might not be aware of is the revisions this posting had to go through in order to make it, well, accurate. Portfolio holder Cllr Melanie Whitehand spotted a more than “liberal” attitude to the facts and contacted Cllr Wells thus:


From: Cllr Melanie Whitehand Sent: 02 September
2009 17:23

To: Cllr Olly Wells

Cc: Councillors; Geoff McManusSubject: Dog
waste bins

Dear Councillor Wells,

It has been brought to my attention that you have placed on your web blog the question put to Council in July by Councillor Sharpley re. dog waste bins and the answer given by myself.

You have used those statements as a basis for further comment on the subject.

I was intrigued by this opening comment…

‘There are fewer and fewer bins for dog waste in Knaphill….

I contacted the Environmental Health department at the Council offices for clarification on this remark, as I was concerned that this was happening. The officer was surprised to hear this assertion as he felt sure that no bins have been removed. Should this have been the case they most certainly would have replaced them.

The second comment re. Barton Close and the lack of a dog waste bin in the area was answered by the officer that dog waste bins are never put that close to residential sites as both the County Council and Woking Council are restricted in this action. Dog waste bins are placed in larger recreational areas. i.e. The Brookwood Country park, Waterer’s Park and St. John’s Lye. The comment to me was that the desire to have dog waste bins close to residential houses was not encouraged from communities for the very reasons that you state, that dog
mess can harbour the parasite Toxi caricanis hence the enforcement of a fine if a dog owner is caught allowing their dog to foul in a public area.

Your third comment, that despite my assurance that…

‘.. where possible replacement or requests for additional bins will be accommodated…’

You report that requests for additional bins have been denied.

This was another comment I put to the Council officer, who again, was confused with this remark as he was of the mind that no requests for bins in appropriate areas have been denied.

Could you possible furnish details of the claims of where dog waste bins that have been requested in particular areas were denied please? And could you offer up evidence of where the losses of dog waste bins are as the Environmental Health department, I am sure, will be happy to replace them??

Regards

Melanie
Whitehand

A suitably chastised Cllr Wells replied, saying:

“I have amended the first sentence on my post as while it is my opinion, I am
more concerned with there not being enough bins in Knaphill and as these are
also being used as dog waste bins there are not enough bins for dog waste. I will
spend sometime checking the dog waste provision in Knaphill further (as I am
sure you will, perhaps we could do this together?)”

So the main premise of his blog post was, well, a bit of a guess, then.

As for whether Melanie has accepted his offer to audit the dog waste bins in Knaphill (but presumably not their contents??), I am yet to hear.