Agenda item

Report of the Leader of the Council / Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Safety and Communication

The Board considered the report of the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Safety and Communication seeking approval for the extension of existing Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO’s) in respect of dogs across its administrative area.

The PSPO’s were originally approved in May 2016 by Nottingham City Council’s Executive Board and were designed to address various problems associated with dogs in relation to nuisance and annoyance to the public across Nottingham City. 

The Board agreed that the PSPO’s had been working well and were a fair and balanced way to address the issues.  The PSPO’s will be extended as they currently stand. Any extension of area, or addition of areas where dogs are banned would be subject to public consultation and approval by this Board.

RESOLVED to:

(1)  To authorise extensions to the following Public Spaces Protection Orders (“PSPOs”), having been satisfied that the test in section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is met, and having regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly so that they remain in effect for a further period of three years from the 25^th September 2019,:

(i)  Nottingham City Council Dogs on Leads by Direction Public Spaces Protection Order 2016 (“PSPO 1”) Appendix 1

(ii)  Nottingham City Council Dogs on Lead Public Spaces Protection Order 2016 (“PSPO 2”) Appendix 2

(iii)  Nottingham City Council Dogs Exclusion Public Spaces Protection Order 2016 (“PSPO 3”) Appendix 3

(iv)  Nottingham City Council Fouling of Land by Dogs and Requirement to Produce Device for or Other Suitable Means of Removing Dog Faeces Public Spaces Protection Order 2016 (“PSPO 4”) Appendix 4

(2)  To carry out the necessary advertisements and arrange for appropriate signage to be erected or amended where necessary in accordance with the legislative requirements

Reasons for recommendations

Before the Dog Control PSPOs were made in 2016, there were significant problems caused by dog related anti-social behaviour, nuisance and disorder across the whole city of Nottingham. Reports received showed that the problems were often caused by irresponsible dog owners allowing their dogs to intimidate citizens in Nottingham and run amok within the urban areas of Nottingham without being under the full control of their owners. Evidence showed that these issues impacted greatly on the quality of the life for the residents, visitors and businesses alike by intimidation to citizens, posing a danger to citizens and traffic control, and damage to play equipment, street furniture and the wildlife and trees. It undoubtedly had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality.

Evidence gathered in the areas where the Council had previously implemented Dog Control Orders showed a reduction in dog related nuisance and disorder through the use of associated powers. Dog Control Orders were repealed under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”) and replaced by PSPOs. As such, the Dog Control PSPOs were implemented across the Council’s administrative area to ensure that the problems being experienced at that time were not pushed into neighbouring areas. This ensured that the problems caused by dog related anti-social behaviour, nuisance and disorder across the city were cohesively dealt with effectively.

The powers arising from the Dog Control PSPOs are not intended to disrupt peaceful activities, for example families or groups taking their dog out for a walk but are solely used as a control measure for dogs to be kept under control by their owners at all times. They have successfully supported the Council in its efforts to stop irresponsible dog owners from causing anti-social behaviour and associated harassment, alarm and distress to members of the public.

It continues to be recognised that the most contentious part of the Dog Control PSPOs are where they directly impact on the City’s parks. These are important public areas and it is imperative that the correct balance of use is obtained for all park users; this includes suitable and sufficient areas where dogs can safely be exercised ‘off lead’. Authorised Officers are trained to only direct that a dog be placed on a lead on this land where necessary to ‘...prevent a nuisance or behaviour by the dog likely to cause annoyance or disturbance to any other person on any land that [this] Order applies or the worrying or disturbance of any animal or bird.’

The Nottingham City Council Dogs on Lead by Direction Public Spaces Protection Order 2016 has ensured that the correct balance of use has been maintained for all park users and has successfully supported the Council’s commitments towards protecting its citizens and providing a safe and friendly environment for all park users and animals. The restrictions are reasonable, proportionate and satisfy the Animal Welfare Act 2006 whilst also providing the citizens of Nottingham with additional safety from dangerous and uncontrolled dogs. .

The Council has undertaken consultation in relation to the proposed extension to the expiry date of the Dog Control PSPOs only. Any other potential amendments to the Dog Control PSPOs would require formal consultation, publicity and notification in accordance with the 2014 Act authorised in accordance with the Council’s Constitution first before a decision on any such amendment(s) to the Dog Control PSPOs could be taken.

The purpose of the proposed extension to the Dog Control PSPOs is to ensure a continuation of the prevention of those that are causing evidenced ASB and to control their dogs in a responsible fashion. Those going about their business in a peaceful and lawful manner are not be unreasonably affected by the prohibitions in the Dog Control PSPOs.

Other options considered

Doing Nothing:

If the Council chose to do nothing the existing PSPO’s would lapse on 25^th September 2019 and the powers associated with these Orders will no longer be available.

There are no longer alternative existing powers to control various problems associated with dogs in the administrative area of Nottingham as Nottingham City Council’s Executive Board approved the revocation of the Order under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) in May 2016 in order for it to be replaced by the PSPOs.

The Dog Control Orders under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (“the 2005 Act”) were also superseded by the Dog Control PSPOs and are no longer available so for this reason, the option was rejected.

Byelaws

Byelaws such as the Regulations of Dogs at Robin Hood Chase, Dogs at Woodthorpe Park, on the Old Market Square and the Colwick Park Bylaws have been made in Nottingham and where in force, these Byelaws contain various dog controls, breach of which is an offence. However, they only apply to limited parts of the administrative area of Nottingham and the maximum fine on conviction in the Magistrates’ Court for breach is, at most, a level 2 fine. Currently there is no fixed penalty notice available as an alternative to prosecution.

By virtue of Section 70 of the 2014 Act, existing byelaws that prohibit an activity regulated by a PSPO will be of no effect in relation to the restricted area during the currency of the PSPO and so for these reasons this option was also rejected.

Other powers

There are other powers available to control dogs, such as education and engagement, early intervention using non-statutory measures, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, Injunctions, Criminal Behaviour Orders (“CBOs”), dispersal powers and other dog control legislation for example the Dangerous Dogs Act. Examples of these powers are details in the ‘Dealing with irresponsible dog ownership Practitioner’s manual’ dated October 2014. These powers, other than education, are generally only effective in dealing with specific individuals and incidents, and have been largely ineffective in dealing with the wider issues experienced across Nottingham. Court Orders such as CBOs and Civil Injunctions can be issued, however this approach has also proven costly and time consuming. The Council will continue to be able to use these measures where appropriate but reliance on these powers alone was rejected.