Issue - meetings

At its meeting on 31 August 2022 the Executive Committee considered whether to implement the Public Space Protection Order relating to dog control and it was RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Public Space Protection Order relating to dog control be implemented under Section 59 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

38.1           At its meeting on 31 August 2022, the Executive Committee had considered the Public Space Protection Order relating to dog control and recommended that it be implemented under Section 59 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

38.2           The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 4-15.

38.3           The Chair of the Executive Committee proposed the recommendation of the Executive Committee and it was seconded by the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment. The seconder explained that dog fouling was a blight throughout the whole country and the repercussions it could have on the health and wellbeing of humans and farm livestock were huge so he hoped Members could support it. 

38.4           A Member understood the Council was trying to strengthen what it had in place already but he questioned whether the Council was planning to get a Dog Warden; he also questioned whether improvements had been seen in response to what had already been done. In response, the Environmental Health Manager explained that the Council’s stray dogs service was contracted out to Worcestershire Regulatory Services whereas dog fouling was undertaken in-house by the Environmental Health team. Complaints had been fairly consistent but in relatively low numbers; it was felt this may be due to the informal approach taken so far and there may be a need to revisit some of the publicity and social media campaigns to encourage residents to report dog fouling. Referring to Paragraph 2.6, a Member indicated that most open land was agricultural much of which was in private ownership crossed by public footpaths; there had been a sharp increase in people walking with their dogs etc. since the COVID pandemic which had caused some issues – he questioned whether all Parishes would be informed of the Public Space Protection Order and whether signage would be displayed on footpaths. In response, the Environmental Health Manager explained that the Order would apply to public footpaths but not to land in private ownership – the only enforcement that could apply to private land was if someone was not carrying a receptacle to collect faeces. The details of the new Order would be communicated with Parishes and the Council already provided dog fouling signs to them so if more were required they should contact him directly. The Member suggested that part of the signage should include the four provisions of: dog fouling; failing to produce a receptacle for picking up dog faeces; dog exclusion; and failure to provide details.

38.5           In response to a query about the number of Officers in the Environmental Protection team, the Environmental Health Manager advised that there were seven Officers and two Environmental Health Assistants – they spent time in the Borough anyway enforcing enviro-crimes – more Officers from the Community team could be brought in where necessary to help with targeted campaigns and hot spot areas. It was also possible for Parishes which were suffering  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38

To recommend to Council that the Public Space Protection Order relating to dog control is implemented under S.59 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Public Space Protection Order relating to dog control be implemented under Section 59 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.  

35.1           The report of the Principal Environmental Health Officer, circulated at Pages No. 49-60, summarised the findings from a dog-related Public Spaces Protection Order consultation which was undertaken in May and June 2022. Informed by the consultation, the Committee was asked to recommend to Council that the Public Space Protection Order 2022 relating to dog control be implemented.

35.2           The Environmental Health Manager explained that the new Order would cover the whole Borough for a period of three years and would introduce two additional offences in addition to the previous 2018 Order: to make it an offence to allow a dog into a children’s play park which has been designated to exclude dogs – this would include all fenced/enclosed children’s playgrounds; and to make it an offence for anyone who had committed an offence under the Order to refuse to give their name, address and date of birth when asked by an authorised Officer – equally, giving a false or inaccurate name, address or date of birth to an authorised Officer would also be considered an offence under the Order.  The outcome of the public consultation was summarised in Section 3 of the report with the full details contained in Appendix 4. In total there had been 226 responses – 207 of which were residents in Tewkesbury Borough – with the majority of people being in support of the introduction of a Dog Control Public Space Protection Order. There were several comments/questions raised about how the Order would be enforced and the Environmental Health Manager explained that the Environmental Health Team would undertake patrols of areas which were identified as hot spots. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) legislation meant patrols had to be carried out overtly with Officers clearly identifiable and visible; whilst it was unlikely most people would allow their dogs to foul while Officers were present, they would act as a deterrent. Officers would also investigate reports from the public of people not complying with the Order and Fixed Penalty Notices could be served where a witness statement from a member of the public, or other supporting agency, had been provided.

35.3           During the discussion which ensued, a Member questioned why the Order was only made for three years at a time and also whether the Council promoted prosecutions. In response, the Environmental Health Manager advised that the requirement was for a three year period and the Council produced press releases and social media posts when it undertook prosecutions. In response to a query as to whether local Officers could be trained as well as Council Officers, the Environmental Health Manager explained that consideration had been given to the authorisation of external Officers previously but it had been decided this was not necessary as the Council was happy to share intelligence and work with local contacts providing intelligence on hotspot areas. Officers were also happy to take witness statements from Parish Councils as they were the ‘eyes and ears on the ground’ and were happy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35