Agenda item

To enable enforcement activity around dog fouling and irresponsible dog ownership (report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory enclosed).

At the agreement of the Chairman, this item was brought forward to agenda item 10, with remaining items being presented sequentially thereafter.

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Regulatory to enable enforcement activity around dog fouling and irresponsible dog ownership

The Group Manager Public Protection attended to present the report and the Portfolio Holder Public Protection was also in attendance to support the item.

The Group Manager Public Protection introduced the report, and the following points were highlighted:

• A public consultation regarding a proposed new PSPO was underway, which if agreed, would implement the following three offences:
  • A requirement to pick up dog waste;
  • A requirement to evidence a means for the collection dog waste when requested to do so from an authorised officer ; and
  • A proposed requirement to prohibit dogs from enclosed children’s play areas.
• The proposed PSPO would apply to district-wide public open spaces;
• Enforcement would primarily be enacted through the Enviro-Crime enforcement contract however SHDC officers could also be authorised to enforce the PSPO;
• The proposed fixed penalty notice (FPN) of £100 was the maximum allowed by legislation;
• Failure to pay the FPN could result in prosecution through the courts;
• The consultation had been promoted through the Council’s usual communication channels but also directly to interested parties such as Parish Councils, the Dogs Trust and the Police;
• On completion of the consultation, the PSPO was to be presented to Cabinet in November 2024. The proposal, if agreed by Cabinet, would be implementation of the PSPO from February 2025 which would allow sufficient time to promote the PSPO to residents and for the creation of signage to be placed in key locations;
• Interim consultation feedback, from 329 responses, included the following:
  • Do you believe there is a problem with dog fouling in public areas? 84 % of responders agreed;
  • Do you agree with the proposal to make it a public offence to fail to pick up dog faeces? 94.8% of responders agreed;
  • The proposal regarding not having the means to pick up dog waste: 88% of responders agreed;
  • The proposal around excluding dogs from enclosed children’s play areas: 82.6% of responders agreed; and
• The Draft Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) was at Appendix A;

The Portfolio Holder Public Protection added that the PSPO would align SHDC with both ELDC and BBC where PSPOs for dog controls were already in place to assist Enviro-Crime officers to deal with the issue.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members praised the Group Manager Public Protection for her work in bringing forward the proposed PSPO.

• Members stated that many residents were not aware of the proposed PSPO and queried how the message would be circulated to the community in order to ensure/promote compliance.
  • The Group Manager Public Protection responded that:
    • Education of the public regarding the PSPO was key, and that this had informed the scheduled implementation date of February 2025, allowing for a considered promotion campaign to take place; and
    • In the interim period, patrolling enforcement officers could also speak to dog walkers about the impending PSPO.
  • The Portfolio Holder Public Protection added that the proposed PSPO was detailed on the SHDC website and had been covered in the local press.

·       Members relayed feedback from residents which suggested there would be a lack of capacity for enforcement action outside of office hours, when dog walking was particularly prevalent.

o   The Group Manager Public Protection responded that:

§  Whilst enforcement was challenging, the FPN acted as a strong deterrent, with the ability to enforce, and the need to have the means to pick up dog waste acted as a warning to this; and

§  Whilst shift patterns of enforcement officers were flexible, decisions in this respect would need to be proportionate in line with other tasks and be intelligence led.

·       Members asked if the names of those non-compliant to the PSPO could be made public and whether photographic evidence could be considered when assessing non-compliance.

o   The Group Manager Public Protection responded that it was her understanding that a prosecution may be required in order for names to be publicly released; and

o   The utilisation of photographic or video evidence would depend on circumstances but was considered problematic due to the requirement for a clear identification of a perpetrator. The best practice would be to speak with the perpetrator at the point of the offence.

·       Members queried how enforcement officers would deal with dog walkers who were under the age 18 and suggested that an information sheet be given to children to be passed on to their parents.

o   The Group Manager Public Protection responded that FPNs could be issued to a person under the age of 18 but would not normally be, and they would be made aware of their responsibilities as an education piece.

• Members stated that dog fouling hotspots were generally found within green spaces and suggested that information signs be situated in such areas.
  • The Group Manager Public Protection responded that signage would be placed in problematic hotspot areas when the PSPO was approved; and
  • The availability of signage for third parties could potentially be supported, such as for Parish Councils to display in problematic areas.

• Members noted the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 which applied only to highways with a speed limit of less than 50 mph and sought clarification of the reach of the PSPO.
  • The Group Manager Public Protection responded that the speed restriction would not apply to the PSPO and that the order would be district wide.

• Regarding the proposed requirement to prohibit dogs from enclosed children’s play areas, members asked if any issues had been reported in this respect. There was concern that the order placed unnecessary restrictions on the majority of largely responsible dog owners who may wish to visit play areas as a family group with their pet. ‘Off lead’ spaces were limited and residents had already requested the creation of additional spaces to exercise their dogs freely. What was the reason for this aspect being included in the proposed PSPO?
  • The Group Manager Public Protection stated that:
    • The PSPO was formed under Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) legislation and as such this aspect of the proposed PSPO related to ASB and safety as well as dog fouling;
    • Measures that could be considered, and which had been implemented by some councils, included the restriction of the number of dogs allowed in a children’s play area at any one time or the instruction that dogs must be on leads; and
    • It was acknowledged that the majority of dog owners were responsible, and that whilst there were no known concerns relating to dogs in children’s play areas, it was felt appropriate that the subject be explored as part of the current consultation.

·       Members asked whether private developers could be required to fence off play areas.

o  The Group Manager Public Protection stated that the PSPO would not give the council legislative powers in this respect however the matter could be discussed with Planning colleagues.

• Members queried whether the consultation provided a breakdown of the wards most affected by dog fouling. How would prolific areas be identified.
  • The Group Manager Public Protection stated that:
    • Whilst the consultation had not identified responders by ward, that a future measure may include the recording of complaints by ward area; and
    • Dog fouling reports could be made online and data would be assessed by officers.

• Members asked whether promotional material would be circulated through schools.
  • The Group Manager Public Protection stated that engagement with schools would be arranged however this awaited formal adoption of the PSPO.

• Members agreed that the PSPO be reviewed by the panel one year from its adoption at Cabinet.

AGREED:

That after consideration of the proposed PSPO at Appendix A, the comments of the Policy Development Panel be noted.