Agenda item

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 particular problems to get assistance and advice directly from the Environmental Health team should they need it. One of the reasons people were reluctant to make complaints was that they were asked to make a witness statement and he was keen to offer them reassurance. Members welcomed the legislation but believed the only way to really make a difference was by prosecuting perpetrators  - a Member noted that there had previously been discussions about the employment of a Dog Warden who was shared by Parishes across the Borough and she questioned if this was something that could be reconsidered. The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that the employment of an Environmental Warden had been discussed previously and he would speak to the Head of Community Services to understand if it was something which could be progressed. He would also ensure that any convictions were notified to the Communications team and Councillors so the word could spread across the Borough that the Council took such matters extremely seriously and was ready to prosecute if needed.

38.6           The Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment indicated that the Order was not perfect and Officers could only go to the limits of their powers but it was a tool in the Council’s arsenal and, in the right scenario, was a major step forward. Upon being put to the vote, it was

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