Agenda item

Cabinet Member Paul Griffiths introduced the report. Huw Owen presented the report and answered the members’ questions with David Jones.

Challenge:

We can pass laws and establish fines but enforcement and its method is always the challenge, when it comes to having an impact.

The PSPO process itself is helpful as a reminder to the public about picking up waste, where to take their dogs, etc. If we declare any dogs on leads exemption areas, they will be signposted appropriately. One option for enforcement is for authorisations to be spread across a number of directorates/departments. We also have parking enforcement officers who carry out proactive patrolling of car parks etc.; we are already discussing whether they can be authorised. The review of littering and flytipping will address this area, too, as it relates to fixed penalty notices and community support officers, in particular. Officers are also working on intelligence in following up complaints, particularly as owners tend to walk their dogs in the same places.

How would the new controls affect trustees of land? For example, in relation to the land in Caldicot for which the trustee is the Town Council, and which includes a play park and sports field.

As stated in Recommendation 2.3, we have sent correspondence to all town and community councils, setting out the proposed dogs on leads and dogs exemption areas for each council. They can come back to us with any concerns and questions, which might pertain to the land in Caldicot, in that instance. Those details will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a certain area such as a park is included in a PSPO, it becomes an offence to breach the rules that are to be agreed. Beyond that, the Trust’s control of the land should not be affected.

Would an officer be allowed to implement a ticket on a trustee’s land? Some owners disregard the signs in Caldicot, leading to big problems with the field. The Police have said that nothing can be done without a by-law. Where would a by-law come in, if at all?

The PSPO will set out exactly the areas that are covered, on the Council’s website and by explicit signage in the area concerned. So, the rules should be absolutely clear to anyone entering an area, and a resource implication in the report therefore concerns signage.

Regarding enforcement, is there more information about what is available? How many authorised officers are there in the county? What is the budget for enforcement?

Currently, the authorised officers are across Environmental Health and the Waste and Street Cleaning sections, for the current designation order that’s in place, and the Fouling of Lands Act. It is unlikely there will be scope to substantially increase budgets to take on Enforcement Officers but that's to be considered in one option. But there could be authorised officers in other sections such as Estates, Leisure, etc. We have 5 Environmental Health officers and a number of potential officers in Waste and Street Cleaning who could be authorised, as well as 4-5 civil parking enforcement officers. From experience, dedicating technical officers to proactive patrolling for dog fouling isn’t cost effective or efficient. It is more a case of ensuring that there are officers to act on intelligence i.e. from public complaints.

How would the public know that they are dealing with authorised officers, and what will be the reporting mechanism?

Our Environmental Health officers have been carrying out enforcement for decades. When officers approach dog owners they explain who they are and show their authorisation, so they don’t have to be in uniform. There are set procedures that need to be followed when dealing with the public. If officers from other departments are authorised they will be trained in what to do and say, as we did with the community support officers a few years ago.

Would officers show an MCC I.D. or would they need a card to show that they are authorised to carry out enforcement? What are the practicalities?Will there be a separate email address or any publication for anonymous crime reporting?

An officer would approach somebody who are believed to have committed an offence, introduce themselves and explain that they are an  authorised officer. We would not expect them to show  authorisation from the council or head of public protection at that time. If the member of the public is issued with a fixed penalty notice, the order would clearly set out where appeals could be made and contact numbers, contact emails, etc.

I approve of Dogs Trust’s comments about off-lead exercise, but it needs to be in appropriate areas. Perhaps the inclusion of marked sports areas perhaps needs further scrutiny. Is there any evidence that signage has an effect on behaviour or are regular campaigns more effective?

I'm not aware of evidence about the effectiveness of signage. We do know that we need to make the rules clear. In our neighbouring local authorities where PSPOs are in place, the signs in the parks are clear as to exactly what can be done and where. This would also be a useful opportunity to take down old signs, and to have one clear message to dog owners, which could include a map of the park showing where the leads and exemptions areas are. Awareness will be an incremental process, working with Comms on a campaign, and having information on the website about the PSPO coming in, and the expectations. And it will be a case of building on the improvements in recent decades in terms of high street dog fouling – changing attitudes is the best way to get people to comply. Town and Community Councils will be empowered to communicate with their residents about the expectations, hence Recommendation 2.3.

Recommendation 2.2 is vitally important: if someone isn’t carrying bags to pick up after their dog then they obviously have no intention of doing so. Though someone might simply run out. How would that situation be handled?

Consistency of enforcement is really important. There also has to be judgement from the enforcing officer e.g. if someone says they don’t have bags because their dog has already gone and the bags have been used. Each case needs to be taken on its merits, and officers will also often be acting on intelligence rather than just on how a situation presents itself in the moment.

Is it expected that a resource/budget would need to be found to support officers to pursue these fixed penalty notices? Would there be any wider impacts to the current operation of the dog waste contract that’s administered on behalf of town and community councils?

No, this report doesn’t touch on the dog waste collection aspect. As for additional resources, proactive patrolling would not be effective in delivering enforcement. So, if we were given a sum of money to employ another officer or two and report back on how many fixed penalty notices have been issued, we would have concerns about being able to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness.

Chair’s Summary:

Cabinet Member: Implementation is unlikely to succeed without investment in effective signage – orders can’t be issued if the public hasn’t been warned. Some of the figures suggested are around £20k; as an Executive, we will need to face up to that. I am persuaded that there can be a sensible training programme of staff, and that there shouldn’t therefore be a revenue implication on staffing. From experience in another authority, the change from existing signage which has a voluntary look to it, to PSPO signage led to more self-policing, with people feeling it is legitimate for them to police their neighbours. We can learn a lot from elsewhere.

Chair: Thank you to the officers. The recommendations 2.1-2.5 have been scrutinised in detail. Members raised concerns about how we can ensure robust enforcement, how controls will affect Trustees of Open Spaces, resources and the budget for enforcement, how will the public identify the enforcement officers and how will intelligence be received. There are questions about whether we know how effective signage is on behaviour and will there be any resource implications. It was suggested that if someone doesn’t have the right receptacles on their person, they could be given a warning letter. I think it's vitally important that we continue to raise awareness around picking up after your dog and work with many partners and stakeholders to tackle the issue. But it is equally important to offer dog exclusion zones for other members of the public. Members of the public and Town and Community councils will welcome the recommendations outlined in this report as we know it's a very emotive subject, especially on neighbourhood social media accounts and something that we as counsellors receive a large number of complaints on.