COUNCILLORS have approved new rules governing public parks in Inverclyde — after only one objector turned up for a decision hearing.

Fears expressed over the taking of photographs and video footage in designated open spaces had already been allayed prior to the special meeting.

But a rule concerning the control of dogs was described as ‘ambiguous’ by objector George MacNeil — who said his friend had once had to ‘kick’ a canine out of a baby’s pram in the Battery Park, pictured.

Council officials have declared that dogs must be either kept ‘under close control or on a short lead’, and that council staff would enforce the rule at their ‘discretion’.

But Mr MacNeil told the hearing: “A dog could be under close control one minute and the next a bouncing ball, or something, grabs its attention.

“Dogs can be a real hazard to other people, especially children, in a park.

“I feel that the rule as it stands is ambiguous and unenforceable.” Council service manager Willie Rennie said the rule was designed to be a ‘low level’ one and added that national legislation already exists for animals which are dangerously out of control.

He said: “Behaviour should be modified where children are nearby — the rule wouldn’t need to be enforced in Battery Park at 7.30am on a weekday morning when it is being used predominantly by dog walkers and joggers.

“If a dog is becoming a nuisance or a safety hazard, the attendant can intervene and attendants can make a judgement on whether a dog needs to be on a lead or not.

“Each case can be judged on its own merits.” Mr Rennie added: “Close control of a dog is open to interpretation — Battery Park, for instance, is different from Tower Hill.

“Just because a rule exists doesn’t mean that we insist that every dog is put on a lead.” The council has defined a short lead as being no more than two metres in length.

Provost Robert Moran, inset, said that he had a ‘degree of sympathy’ with Mr MacNeil’s objection, adding: “The wording does create ambiguity.” But official Mr Rennie said: “We have tried to take a balanced approach and the wording can be enforced in a reasonable manner.” Councillors adjourned to discuss the matter before deciding to pass the rule as it stands.

Concern had previously been expressed that people could be banned from taking pictures in the district’s public parks.

An initial drafting of that rule stated: “Nobody is to take any photographs for publication or for commercial use without the express written permission of the corporate director.” However, it has now been changed to prohibiting the taking of photos or film where it ‘interferes with the use and enjoyment of the park by others’.

The council received 39 objections to the plan in total, with 16 of those being withdrawn following satisfactory explanations or changes to the working of certain rules.