(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 protection would lead to criticism, particularly given the strength of public feeling about aspects of irresponsible dog ownership |
Option 1 to adopt the DCOs as proposed in the consultation document, with the exception that the Dogs on Leads DCO does not apply to cycle ways or to quiet rural lanes with a 40mph speed limit or higher was the officer preferred option. This option addressed the need for public protection, supported future enforcement and most closely reflected the majority of public comment arising from the consultation.
Councillor Leytham proposed, seconded by Councillor Barry-
“(1) That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”
Councillors then voted:-
Resolved unanimously:
(1) That four Dog Control Orders be made, to include provisions as set out in the report attached to the agenda.
(2) That the Leader, in accordance with Rule 1.4 of the Cabinet Procedure Rules amends the Officer Scheme of Delegation, (which forms part of the executive arrangements), to delegate to the Head of Health and Housing authority to designate in writing authorised officers for the purposes of Part 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Head of Health & Housing
Reasons for making the decision:
Dog Control Orders were an important component of maintaining the statutory minimum level of dog-related enforcement in future. Adoption of the proposed DCOs as revised would lead to more effective dog control and enforcement in the district. The purpose of the public consultation had been to bring proposals to the attention of local communities and to consider all representations made. This particular consultation resulted in a high volume of responses, particularly relating to cycleway proposals, and the proposals had been amended to take public opinion into account.