Agenda item

The report had been requested by the Committee after receiving a request from, the Peterborough North Area Committee to consider dog control orders after having received many complaints about uncontrolled dogs and dog fouling in public places.    The report informed the committee what would be involved in instigating a Dog Control Order including the legal process, evidence base, staffing requirements and potential costs.

The committee was asked to debate the subject and make any recommendations.

Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:

·         How should constituents deal with a situation when out walking their dog and are confronted with a person walking 12 unleashed dogs finding themselves in a terrifying situation.  Dog fouling was also an issue. How do we educate people to take responsibility for their dogs? The Senior Neighbourhood Enforcement Officer informed the Committee that the complaints made by their constituents were not finding there way to the correct officers in order for them to deal with the issues. There had only been three reports of uncontrolled dogs in the whole year. If Dog Control Orders were to be put in place then it would need to be evidenced statistically that they were required and at present there was not sufficient evidence. A method would need to be put in place to ensure complaints reached the correct department and were recorded.  The Officer advised  the Committee that the following the recent press release stating that the council was considering dog control orders he had received two letters from the biggest charities relating to dogs in the country.  They had stated that they would oppose the decision and they had offered suggestions on other ways of working.

·         How would we crack down on the minority of irresponsible and antisocial dog owners? The Officer advised that running educational programmes in schools would need to be considered before dog control orders were put in place. The council had adhered to its statutory obligation which was to deal with stray dogs only. If a Dog Control Order were to be installed then an additional member of staff would be needed to effectively police it and at the moment the resource level is low. The department that would be affected the most should the Dog Control Orders be put in place would be the Neighbourhood Officers who also dealt with fly tipping, abandoned vehicles and all things that were in the public eye. They did deal with dog fouling but it was hard to catch people. The officer felt it would be necessary to employ a full time person should the council go ahead with the Dog Control Orders.

·         Was it an offence for dog owners to allow their dogs to roam around freely in a fenced off children’s play area while the children were playing. Could anything be done about it. Some local councils have Dog Control Orders on specific areas like a children’s play area.

·         The Head of Neighbourhoods commented that the solution to the problem was more than would be provided by a dog control order.   The issue seemed to be one of criminality and anti social behaviour amongst the minority of irresponsible dog owners. He did not believe that Dog Control Orders were the right way forward at the moment but suggested the following:

o        To look at the consultation on new antisocial behaviour which was part of the government’s decentralisation agenda.

o        To look at the powers that the council already had available to them within their own organisation and Cambridgeshire Constabulary focusing on antisocial behaviour elements of dog ownership and how this could be dealt with.

      Members agreed to the Head of Neighbourhoods suggestion.

·         Is there any way we could talk to veterinary surgeries so they could distribute literature on legislation to new dog owners. Are dog walking businesses educated on the guidelines and are they insured. The Head of Neighbourhood Services informed Members that there had not been the environment to try these things before due to government regulations. There was now more freedom to try other things. The Head of Neighbourhoods commented that at the moment work was being done with twenty large employers across the city like Thomas Cook, Diligenta, BGL who had a lot of employees many of which may be dog owners.  The Council now had a relationship with the Corporate Social Responsibility leads of those businesses.  This would provide an opportunity to go in to the companies and give talks or provide them with literature to give out to their staff at induction sessions or during training sessions. This opened up a  market for people to become more aware and to take on responsibility in society by looking out for things that were going wrong in their own community and to challenge people behaving irresponsibly with their dogs. This would be picked up as part of the Corporate Social Responsibility programme that was being working on.

·         Scott Westaway and Mark Smith advised the committee that they had provided the city with a dog warden service, out of hours kennelling and pest control services since September 2011.  The company took a pro active approach and would take on board any requests made. The dog warden service needed to be asked for in order to maintain a level of service. There had been issues in that the council had not been instructing them on using the dog warden. Mark Smith informed the committee that they were aware of the issues that Peterborough had and offered to come and resolve them.  He advised that the council needed to enforce the existing legislation they had in place and if there were issues with uncontrolled dogs then they needed to be advised in order to provide a successful service for the council. If the council wished to target areas such as strays or fouling then the officers needed to be advised of this in order for them to come up with a proposal which may require additional time. He believed that existing legislation needed to be used before looking at dog control orders as they were difficult to initiate. It was the actual enforcement of a dog control order that was particularly difficult. Dog control orders were a very difficult route to go down when there was existing legislation and service providers in place.

·         Could the service providers concentrate on the dog fouling issues in Hodgson Avenue? The Enforcement Officer advised that Hodgson Avenue was an area that had been proactively patrolled with other areas they had received complaints about.  However when the officers were present people tended to behave. The Head of Neighbourhoods asked Members to agree to work with the Officers as a pilot for testing some ideas they had to combat this problem. Scott Westaway advised that a coordinated campaign was needed to be cohesive and coherent. The issues seemed to be an internal and external communication problem. Scott Westaway informed the committee that they could help the officers come up with a coherent plan.

·         Members suggested that dog walking businesses should be educated in current legislation as this would be the key to resolving the issue.

RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that the Head of Neighbourhood Services work with the Safer Peterborough Partnership and Cambridgeshire Constabulary to look at an operation focusing on antisocial behaviour elements of dog ownership and how this can be dealt with.  A report to be presented back to the Committee in six months time.