To consider the implementation of a Public Spaces Protection Order under S59 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the introduction of fixed penalty notice fines for all controls contained in the Order.  

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

1.      That a Public Spaces Protection Order be implemented under S.59 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 as set out at Appendix A to the report.

2.      That Fixed Penalty Notice fines of £100 be introduced for all controls contained in the Public Spaces Protection Order.  

100.1         The report of the Environmental Health Manager, circulated at Pages No. 38-47, sought to replace the current enforcement activity carried out under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 with a Public Spaces Protection Order which provided authorised officers with more effective enforcement methods to deal with dog fouling. Members were asked to consider the implementation of the Public Spaces Protection Order and to make a recommendation to Council that it be implemented along with the introduction of fixed penalty notice fines of £100 for all controls contained in the Order.

100.2         The Head of Community Services explained that the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provided local authorities with powers to create Public Spaces Protection Orders where they were satisfied that activities carried out in a public place had, or were likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality; was, or was likely to be, persistent or continuing in nature; was, or was likely to be, unreasonable; or where they justified the restrictions imposed. The Council currently controlled dog fouling through the provisions of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 but that legislation had been repealed and the dog fouling provisions had become part of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 – this had since been replaced by Dog Control Orders. The main advantages of the proposed approach was that it allowed for the increase of fixed penalty fines from £50 to £100 and for the introduction of a second offence of “failing to have readily available a suitable means of picking up any faeces deposited by a dog under an individual’s control”. The introduction of the Public Spaces Protection Order had required a 12 week period of public consultation and Page No. 47 of the report set out a summary of the consultation responses. In addition, a copy of the Order was attached to the report at Page No. 43 and it was confirmed that it would cover all areas of public land in the Borough.

100.3         Members agreed that this was an extremely emotive issue and felt the Order was definitely a step in the right direction in terms of stopping dog fouling. In response to Member queries, the Head of Community Services confirmed that evidence from the public was helpful but Officers would also be actively making patrols and issuing fixed penalty notices. In terms of the delegation of the powers to other organisations, it may be possible to provide them to officers of Parish Councils rather than Members; however, he undertook to check this. In addition, the Chief Executive indicated that it could be difficult to delegate powers to Parishes as training was required to ensure enforcement action was taken in the correct way. There was also some reluctance for them to issue fines as it could give rise to issues between neighbours. Another Member noted that, whilst people did pick up after their dogs, it was often difficult to find a bin in which to dispose of it. In response, the Head of Community Services indicated that Ubico was engaged to empty dog bins and the frequency of this was currently being reviewed; however, the public were always encouraged to report bins which required emptying so those could be reported to Ubico in a timely manner. A Member suggested it may be helpful in the press release to tell people they could put dog waste in any bin as they often did not realise they could use litter bins as well as dog waste bins.

100.4         Accordingly, it was