Agenda item

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 to undertake enforcement action on that basis.

35.4           The Environmental Health Manager explained that having the Order in place was useful as it meant Officers could call the Police when necessary. In terms of the new offence not to provide personal information, this was necessary as it was difficult to take enforcement action if you did not know the details of the person involved. A Member noted that, since it was a legal requirement for all dogs to be microchipped, it made sense for Officers to carry microchip scanners as a way of getting the information they needed about the owners. The Head of Community Services felt this was worth investigating to see if it was legally possible.  In terms of the Officer resource, the Head of Community Services indicated that the entire Environmental Health team was able to do the work but it was resource intensive. They would undertake periodic patrols everywhere and focus on particular hot spots when necessary.

35.5           It was suggested that information about the new Order should be circulated as widely as possible as this could act as a deterrent to some people and it was agreed it would be circulated within Parishes, in the Borough News, on the website and through other local news publications. Accordingly, it was