Issue - meetings

Consultation on Dog Control Orders

 

 

Meeting: 06/12/2011 - Cabinet (Item 67)

67 Consultation on Dog Control Orders pdf icon PDF 97 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Report of the Head of Health and Housing Services

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Health and Housing Services to seek approval to go out to consultation on Dog Control Orders.

 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:

 

 

Option 1: Commence consultation as outlined in the report.

Option 2: Commence consultation on a different basis.

Option 3: Not commencing consultation

Advantages

Proceeding as recommended will lead to rapid implementation of the proposed DCOs

Reviewing the scope and content of proposed DCOs would enable more detailed member involvement at this stage (NB: there will be scope for Members to influence final decisions at a later date).

There would be no consultation costs incurred

Disadvantages

Cost of consultation. No other disadvantages have been indentified

Based on their operational experience and engagement with communities, officers have carefully considered the DCOs on which it is recommended the Council consults. Changing the options to be consulted may go against lessons learned from operational experience and previous public consultation.

DCOs cannot be created without public consultation, in which case dog control services would have to continue with the current enforcement methods – this might delay enforcement, narrow the geographical areas in which it is possible, and be less cost effective than enforcement under new DCOs.

Risks

There are no risks from carrying out the consultation process. It is a necessary part of the process before finally approving DCOs.

 

Increasing the scope of consultation would complicate matters and might increase the cost of consultation.

Dog Control Services would not be able to enforce dog control in all areas in the district and enforcement would be less efficient or cost effective.

 

The current enforcement system is inconsistent and confusing for the public.

 

Option 1, to commence consultation on the Dog Control Orders described in the Proposal Details was the officer preferred option.

 

Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Hanson:-

 

“That the commencement of the public consultation process be approved.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved:

 

(7 Members (Councillors Blamire, Bryning, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson, Leytham, Sands and Smith) voted in favour, and 1 Member (Councillor Barry) abstained.)

 

(1)        That the commencement of the public consultation process be approved.

 

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

 

Head of Health and Housing

 

Reasons for making the decision:

 

Dog Control Orders are an important component of maintaining the statutory minimum level of dog-related enforcement in future.  Implementing DCOs is a key activity in the Health & Housing Business Plan 2011-12.  It is necessary to initiate the public consultation process to enable the introduction of Dog Control Orders.  At present dog control is enforced under a range of Byelaws and Acts of Parliament, which leads to inconsistency and confusion.  This is difficult for both dog owners and enforcement officers to understand.  The four proposed DCOs would rectify the situation.