Issue - meetings

            The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Enterprise, Community and Resources, which provided Members with the results of a public consultation exercise that was undertaken in respect of the Council’s proposal to introduce a new Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO). The Order would help tackle dog fouling and other forms of irresponsible dog ownership and the Board was requested to make recommendations to the Executive Board in that respect.

            The new PSPO would be in the form of a single Order that would include the control measures contained within the existing Orders, as well as new requirements that those in control of dogs must comply with. The specified locations where some existing control measures applied would also be extended under the new PSPO.

            Members noted that the proposed PSPO had been subject to a public consultation exercise which ran from 6^th July to 28^th September 2018. As a result, 922 responses were received and details of these, in respect of the following, were outlined in the report:

·         Exclusion of dogs;

·         Dogs on leads;

·         Dog fouling;

·         Restriction on the number of dogs walked at a time; and

·         Fixed penalty notices.

            In accordance with Standing Order No. 34 (9), a public question had been submitted to the Board.

Question – Helen Taylor

            Are the Board concerned that the reference to the Countryside and Rights Of Way Act (CROW) in the consultation may have affected the responses received by suggesting a legitimacy to the proposal regarding lead length that it does not warrant? CROW applies to “mountain, moors, Heath or down” and registered common land - it specifically does not apply to parks and gardens. Also the CROW restriction on lead length only relates to the period from 1 March to 31 July, but this has not been reflected in the PSPO.

Response

            In response, Mr Unsworth advised the Board that the Council’s proposals were that dogs should be kept on a lead under certain circumstances for the purposes of ensuring that owners had them under control in order to reduce the risk of the dog causing nuisance or injury to members of the public or other animals. In this context, referencing the CROW Act was intended only as guidance and using the definition of a short lead contained within it was seen as a reasonable and sound basis for individuals to consider their response to the consultation. The CROW Act would not be used for the purposes of the proposed PSPO.

Ms Taylor submitted the following supplementary public question;

 “90% of people use a 5 metre retractable lead for their dog which are a better experience for the dog than the proposed 2 metre lead. It is not just about the length of the lead to control the dog but about the competency of the person holding the lead.”

In response, Mr Unsworth advised that the proposal for a 2 metre lead for the dog only applied in specific circumstances where Officers believed extra control was needed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30