Rother District Council s4

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 9.5

Report to - Cabinet

Date - 12 October 2009

Report of the - Director of Services

Subject - Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005

Dog Control Orders - Dogs on Leads

Recommendation: It be RESOLVED that Officers be authorised to consult Parish Councils about making a Dog Control Order requiring dogs to be on leads in designated areas.

Head of Service: Richard Parker-Harding

Lead Cabinet Members: Councillors Jenkins and Russell

Background

1. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 replaced the previous system of Councils adopting dog byelaws with a power for Councils to make Dog Control Orders. The Orders can be made by Parish or District Councils and can apply to certain private and public land. The Council has made Dog Control Orders requiring the removal of faeces and excluding dogs from certain areas and so the original Byelaws etc. on those topics have been superseded.

2. The matter was considered by Cabinet in October 2007 (Minute CB07/86 refers) when it was resolved that further reports be requested on Dog Control Orders for:

(a) dogs to be prohibited from certain areas by April 2008;

(b) dogs to be on leads in certain areas; and

The Cabinet duly received Report (a), and the Order has been made but has not received the further reports on dogs on leads and numbers of dogs under one persons’ control.

The legislation

3. The Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties etc) Regulations provide five types of dog control order, the legal wording of which is prescribed in the Schedules:-

(a) failing to remove dog faeces;

(b) not keeping a dog on a lead;

(d) permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded; and

(e) taking more than a specified number of dogs onto land.

Unlike Byelaws, Dog Control Orders do not need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. Under Section 57 of the Act, a Dog Control Order can be made in respect of any land which is open to the air to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment). It is a relatively straightforward matter to amend the order or make further orders in the future.

The procedure is set out in The Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006 (No. 798). The Regulations require that before making a Dog Control Order an Authority shall—

(a) Consult upon its proposal to make the order by publishing a notice in a local newspaper circulating in the area.

(b) Consult every other Authority having power to make a Dog Control Order.

(c) Various consultations in respect of Access Land as defined in Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This requirement can be avoided by excluding Access Land from the proposed Order.

The notice must, amongst other things, identify the land in respect of which the order is to apply, summarise the order, and give not less than 28 days for representations. It is then necessary for the representations to be considered before a final decision is made. If a Dog Control Order is made, further notification requirements apply.

Defences/Exemptions

4. There are defences in all Dog Control Orders of:-

(a) having a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with an order; or

(b) acting with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land, or of any other person or authority which has control of the land.

5. Under (a), no offence is committed if a person in control of a dog has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with an order. This would include those responsible for dogs such as Police dogs which are on land to investigate or prevent crime. In such cases it will be for local authorities to decide whether to pursue cases where this defence is invoked. If they choose to do so, it will be for the Courts to decide whether someone had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a Dog Control Order.

6. Under (b), no offence is committed if a person in charge of a dog acts with the consent of the owner who owns or is otherwise in control of the land. There is no specific exemption in the regulations for working dogs, but this provision will cover any dog that is working on land with the consent of the person in control of the land.

Restricting the number of dogs under one persons control

7. There is no evidence that the practice of commercial dog walking is causing any problems in the district and it is therefore proposed that no action should be taken to restrict the number of dogs under one persons control.

Requiring dogs to be on leads in certain areas

8. The existing controls are a byelaw made by Sedlescombe Parish Council relating to their Sportsfield, an Order in relation to Battle High Street for road safety reasons and a seasonal requirement (1 May to 30 September) applying to the section of Bexhill’s promenade between groynes 34 (approximately opposite Pages Avenue) and 78 (approximately opposite Sea Road).

9. Requiring dogs to be on leads may promote safety and prevent disturbance. It may also assist compliance with cleaning up and exclusion orders. Battle High Street remains a dangerous road for unsecured dogs, and other streets may emerge during the proposed consultation. There will remain areas where there is no reason for dogs not to run free.

Council owned land in Bexhill and Rye

10. The Head of Amenities recommends that the Council should consider introducing a Dog Control Order requiring dogs to be on leads in certain areas:

Egerton Park

· It is an ornamental park and therefore it is not appropriate for dogs to be off leads.

· The existing play area is to be refurbished and doubled in size to create a play-zone that will attract a high level of use. Furthermore, parts of it will not be fenced, but will be integrated into the park landscape. With more children and families using and playing in the park it is appropriate that dogs should be kept on a lead.

· There is sometimes an issue with dogs bothering/attacking the waterfowl.

Manor Gardens

· It is a formal, ornamental garden for passive recreation and therefore it is not appropriate for dogs to be off leads.

· There are no large open spaces for dogs to run around in and therefore there is no reason for dogs to be off leads.

· The Gardens are compartmentalised. The layout is such that owners cannot easily see where their dogs have gone and therefore cannot ensure that they are under control.

Bexhill Promenade and Metropole Lawns

It is recommended that the Council replaces the existing bye-law requiring dogs to be on leads between 1st May and 30th September.

Rye Cemetery

Dogs are excluded from the cemetery but owners walk their dogs along the public footpath. It is recommended that dogs should be required to be on leads when using the public footpath.

Battle High Street

11. It is recommended that the Council replaces the existing bye-law requiring dogs to be on leads.

Parish & Town Councils

12. Before 1996, Parish, Town and District Councils had the power to make Byelaws about Dogs, but only the District Council could make Fouling of Land Orders under the 1996 Act. Under the 2005 Act, Parish, Town and District Councils may make Dog Control Orders provided that they are satisfied that an Order is justified and have followed the necessary procedures. Section 63 of the Act sets out the arrangements for eliminating potential conflicts where the powers of District and Parish and Town Councils overlap. In sub-section (1) it states that a secondary authority may not make a Dog Control Order in relation to an offence on a specified area of land if the District Council has already made an Order in respect of the same offence on the same land. Similarly, if a District Council decides to make a Dog Control Order in respect of an offence on a specified area of land, any existing Order made by a Parish or Town Council for the same offence on the same land lapses.

13. These arrangements do not prevent a Parish or Town Council from making a Dog Control Order in respect of a different offence on land that is already subject to a primary authority order in relation to another offence. For example, a District Council might make a Fouling of Dogs Order applying throughout its area. This would not prevent a Parish or Town Council from making an order to exclude dogs altogether from, say, playing fields within its jurisdiction. I consider it would be undesirable for Parish/Town Councils to make their own Orders so that the District’s Orders can be referred to by dog owners as a complete code. Including their requirements in the District’s Order saves them from expense and trouble.

14. Beckley Parish Council has indicated that it is considering a dogs on leads order for designated areas and Sedlescombe would like their Byelaw replaced. The existing dog fouling and dog exclusion orders apply to the whole district and it is preferable to have one potential district wide order for dogs on leads, which can be enforced more easily. It is therefore proposed that the Parish Councils are consulted before proceeding any further.

Conclusion

15. The need for a dogs on leads order for Egerton Park and Manor Gardens has been identified. Before proceeding any further it is proposed that Parish Councils are consulted about a District wide order.

Anthony Leonard

Director of Services

Risk Assessment Statement

The Council should make Dog Control Orders if they are required to protect the public (particularly children) or prevent nuisance. The introduction of Dog Control Orders are an effective way of protecting the public. This is a contentious and sensitive subject and the need to make a balance between public health and safety and animal welfare will be challenging. The risk of doing nothing is that less effective controls continue in force limiting the action that can be taken against offending dog owners, and law-abiding dog-owners are not clear about their legal obligations.

cb091012 – Dogs on Leads