Agenda item

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its five appendices, which are contained in the first agenda supplement, and to make the following resolution namely that:

The making of the Public Spaces Protection Order - Dog Control relating to the behaviours and geographical areas set out in appendices 1 and 2 to the agenda report be authorised.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the making of the Public Spaces Protection Order - Dog Control relating to the behaviours and geographical areas as set out in appendices 1 and 2 to the agenda report be authorised.

(2)  That the Head of Housing and Environment Services be authorised following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment Services to enable minor amendments to be made to the documents in (1) above.

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its five appendices in the first agenda supplement (copies attached to the official minutes).

The report was presented by Mr Connor.

Mrs Stevens and Mrs Rudziak were in attendance for this item.

Mr Connor explained that as a result of the repeal of dog control orders on 1 October 2017 CDC would be replacing them with public space protection orders (PSPO) and the statutory power to do so, the nature of PSPOs and the procedure for introducing them including public consultation was set out in sections 3 and 8 of the report.  The consultation responses were detailed in appendices 3 and 4. The consequential amendments made as a result of those responses were detailed in appendix 5. The outcomes to be achieved by the new PSPOs were set out in section 4 of the report. 

Mrs Stevens said that all of the consultation response received, which varied widely in favour of fewer or stricter controls, had been carefully considered. 

During the debate Cabinet and other CDC members expressed their support for the proposed new PSPOs, recognising that the majority of dog owners acted responsibly and there were benefits to people in having a dog. Mrs Stevens, Mrs Rudziak and Mr Connor responded to their questions and comments on various matters which included:

(a)  The public was welcome to contact CDC with information about dog fouling incidents; indeed local residents and visitors were seen as CDC’s eyes and ears in enforcing these powers.

(b)  The Friends of Priory Park were contacted as part of the consultation but there was no response to the point about whether dogs on leads should be allowed there. This park and the Bishop’s Palace Gardens were two enclosed public recreation areas in the city where dogs were prohibited and in significantly minimising public health risks associated with dog fouling as a result, children could play safely and enjoy family picnics. The rest of the city had a range of public open spaces where dogs could be exercised.

(c)  The enforcement by CDC officers would be undertaken by two dog wardens and the foreshore officers. This was considered to be a reasonable level of control to encourage people to respond in the right way and to achieve an even greater consensus by the public that irresponsible care of dogs in public places was socially unacceptable. In view of the aggressive behaviour by some dog owners and their dogs, the use of body cameras was being considered for the dog control enforcement officers. Such cameras in particular were shown to be particularly effective in lowering aggression. Proposals to consider such measures were due to be brought to the Cabinet later in 2017.

(d)  The concerns which led to the response submitted by the National Farmers Union (pages 260 to 261) were explained. 

(e)  The PSPO would not apply to people with disabilities who required a dog.

(f)    The need, if required, to clarify (a) the meaning of ‘public open space’ in the second line of para 6 in Schedule 1 in appendix 1 to the agenda report so as to read for example ‘publically accessible land’ and (b) whether CDC’s car parks should be included in para 3 of the aforesaid Schedule 1 would be investigated by officers after this meeting. If appropriate such amendments would be made under the use of a delegated authority which ought to be included in the resolutions to be made by the Cabinet. 

[Note Following the meeting, the points raised in (f) above by Mr Oakley were duly considered and the advice of CDC’s Legal Services was sought, as a result of which it was not considered necessary to amend the PSPO]

The Cabinet supported the making of a second resolution conferring a delegated authority.

Decision

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands in favour of making the resolutions set out below.

RESOLVED

(1)  That the making of the Public Spaces Protection Order - Dog Control relating to the behaviours and geographical areas as set out in appendices 1 and 2 to the agenda report be authorised.

(2)  That the Head of Housing and Environment Services be authorised following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment Services to enable minor amendments to be made to the documents in (1) above.