Issue - meetings

To Seek Approval for the Adoption of Public Space Protection Orders (Dog Control)

 

 

Meeting: 27/10/2020 - Cabinet (Item 70)

70 To Seek Approval for the Adoption of Public Space Protection Orders (Dog Control) pdf icon PDF 396 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sinclair)

 

Report of Director for Communities and the Environment

Additional documents:

Minutes:

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Sinclair)

 

Cabinet received a report from the Director for Communities and the Environment that sought approval for the adoption of four Public Space Protection Orders (Dog Controls) for a period of 3 years.

 

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

 

Option 1: Adopt the PSPOs as proposed in the consultation, with no amendments

 Advantages: · Reflects the majority of representation 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

Disadvantages: · None identified

Risks: The decision concerning dogs on leads would not reflect the views of all consultees

 

Option 2: Adopting the PSPO, but including dogs on leads for cycle ways

Advantages: Supportive of a minority view of consultees

Disadvantages: · Unpopularity with local communities of applying dogs on leads to cycle ways. · Reduced availability of off lead dog exercise areas, particularly in areas where there are few alternatives. · Need for more enforcement than option 1.

Risks: The decision concerning dogs on leads would not reflect the views of all consultees. It would be difficult to enforce.

 

Option 3: Do not adopt the PSPOs (Dog Control)

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

Disadvantages: · Confusion from discontinuation of existing enforcement. · Going against majority of consultees · Return to a system of enforcement which is unclear and inconsistent · Unnecessary expense and complications in having to prosecute for offences instead of applying fixed penalty notices available under options 1 and 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 not to introduce available dog-related regulatory measures for public protection would lead to criticism, particularly given the strength of public feeling about aspects of irresponsible dog ownership.

 

The officer preferred option is Option 1 to adopt the PSPOs (Dog Control) as consulted on. This option addresses needs for public protection, supports further enforcement and most closely reflects the majority of public comment arising from the consultation. Adoption of the original Dog Control Orders has led to more straightforward and effective dog control and enforcement in the district. There continues to be considerable public support for enforcement, and this was confirmed by comments received in the recent consultation but balanced with a fair approach towards responsible dog owners.

 

Councillor Sinclair proposed, seconded by Councillor Brookes:-

 

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

 

Councillors then voted:-

 

Resolved unanimously:

 

(1) That the four Public Space Protection Orders (Dog Control) be made, to include    provisions as appended to the report.

 

(2)   That authority be delegated to the Head of Public Protection to designate in writing authorised officers for the purposes of issuing fixed penalty fines.

 

Officer responsible for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70