Issue - meetings

To Seek Approval for Adoption of Dog Control Orders

 

 

Meeting: 24/07/2012 - Cabinet (Item 34)

34 Adoption of Dog Control Orders pdf icon PDF 173 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Report of the Head of Health & Housing

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Leytham)

 

Mr Adam Hanlon who had registered to speak in accordance with the City Council’s agreed procedure and Cabinet Procedure Rule 2.7 addressed the meeting on this item and responded to questions raised by Cabinet Members.

 

Cabinet received a report from the Head of Health & Housing to seek approval to make Dog Control Orders.

 

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

 

Three straightforward options reflecting responses received during public consultation were presented in the table below.  Officers advised against Option 3.  Members might make DCOs on any other basis than the recommendations contained in the report.  However there might be complications and it would be necessary to address legal, financial and practical implications before finalising any DCO formulated differently than either Option 1 or 2.

 

 

Option 1: Adopt the DCOs as  proposed in the consultation document, including amendments so that the Dogs on Leads DCO does not apply to cycle ways or to quiet rural lanes with speed limits of 40mph or higher

Option 2: Adopting the DCOs as originally proposed, retaining control under the Dogs on Leads DCO for cycle ways and all highways

Option 3: Do not adopt the DCOs

Advantages

·         Reflects the majority of representations made during the public consultation.

·         Enables less able-bodied people to continue to exercise dogs off leads on the flat hard surfaces of ‘cycle ways’.

·         More consistent and less confusing enforcement.

·         More rapid, effective and efficient  enforcement using Fixed Penalty Notices, compared to the majority current method of prosecuting through the court system.

·         Supportive of Dogs on Leads under Direction DCO in areas not included in a Dogs on Leads DCO.

 

·         More consistent and less confusing enforcement.

·         More rapid, effective and efficient  enforcement using Fixed Penalty Notices, compared to the majority current method of prosecuting through the court system.

·         Supportive of Dogs on Leads under Direction DCO in areas not included in a Dogs on Leads DCO.

 

·         Saving on staff time to implement new Dog Control Orders, and advertising or signage costs.

Disadvantages

·         None identified

·         Unpopularity within local communities of applying Dogs on Leads DCO to cycle ways and roads with a speed limit over 40mph.

·         Reduced availability of off-lead dog exercise areas, particularly in areas where there are few alternatives.

·         Need for additional enforcement compared to Option 1.

 

·         Continuation of the current enforcement system which is inconsistent and confusing for the public.

·         Unnecessary expense and complications in having to prosecute for offences instead of applying fixed penalty notices available under option 1 or 2, leading to delays and lower efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

·         The extent of land within the district on which regulatory dog controls apply would remain limited.

Risks

·         The decision concerning Dogs on Leads would not reflect the views of a minority of consultees

·         The decision to go against the majority opinion of consultees could lead to some public dissatisfaction.

 

·         The decision not to introduce available dog-related regulatory measures for public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34