Clean Streets Consultation Full Report

November 2012

This report summarises the results of the Clean Streets Consultation conducted via a self completion and online survey carried out between 2 July and 24 September 2012.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 3 Method ...... 3 Respondents ...... 5 Headline Summary ...... 6 Dog Control Orders ...... 6

Fouling of Land by Dogs Order ...... 6 Dogs on Leads by Direction Order ...... 8 Dog Exclusion Order ...... 9 Dogs on Leads Order ...... 10 Public Urination and Defecation in the Street ...... 12

Respondents Profile ...... 13

Dog owners / Non-dog owners Consultation Analysis ...... 16 Fouling of Land by Dogs Order ...... 16 Dogs on Leads by Direction Order ...... 17 Dog Exclusion Order ...... 17 Dogs on Leads Order ...... 18 Consultation Analysis by Location ...... 20 Dog Control Orders ...... 21

Fouling of Land by Dogs Order ...... 24 Dogs on Leads by Direction Order ...... 38 Dog Exclusion Order ...... 43 Dogs on Leads Order ...... 50 Public Urination and Defecation in the Street ...... 58

Respondents Profile ...... 61

Comments by Question ...... 73 Fouling of Land by Dogs Order ...... 73 Dogs on Leads by Direction Order ...... 115 Dog Exclusion Order ...... 131 Dogs on Leads Order ...... 148 Any other comments ...... 162

Responses by Letter and Email ...... 198

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 2

Introduction

Complaints by the public to the council and police, show cleaner streets are a priority for residents.

The Clean Street consultation asked the public which Dog Control Orders they would like to see introduced giving South Lakeland District Council the power to deal with the most common problems associated with dogs, and if there is support for a public bylaw to give the Police the relevant power to take action in response to public urination and defecation in the street.

Using the results of the consultation the council can put the most suitable measures in place resulting in cleaner streets for all.

Method

The Clean Streets Consultation was open to all members of the public, including those who own or walk dogs for others.

The consultation was publicised through press releases and roadshows to promote the consultation, enabling members of the public to ask questions, view the maps, find out more and take part. These were held in most main towns and the two main agricultural shows as listed below:

• Wednesday 25 July North Lonsdale Show, • Tuesday 14 August ASDA, • Thursday 16 August Market Square, Ulverston • Saturday 18 August Pets at Home, Kendal • Monday 20 August Main Street Car Park, Grange-over-Sands • Tuesday 21 August Joss Lane Car Park, Sedbergh • Wednesday 22 August Booths, Windermere • Thursday 23 August Booths, • Friday 24 August Market Square, • Thursday 13 September County Show

The consultation was accessible for those without online access with paper copies available in the SLDC offices at Kendal, Ulverston and Windermere and in all libraries across the district. Packs containing the summary, poster and a supply of questionnaires were sent to all town and parish councils to distribute in their parish

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 3

An email with a link to the consultation was sent to all key stakeholders, those who had registered an interest in SLDC consultations, equality and diversity groups, town and parish councils and Local Area Partnerships.

The following were available on the consultation pages of the website www.southlakeland.gov.uk

A Summary of the consultation – Maps of the areas explaining the covered by the purpose of the orders e.g. Acre consultation and Moss, Kendal how to take part

Frequently asked questions – giving further detailed information on the issues, in a question and answer format

Online survey – respondents were able to complete their responses using the online survey, paper responses were uploaded onto the survey software.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 4

A dedicated email address [email protected], and SLDC’s contact centre number 0845 050 4434, were available for people to ask questions and request copies of questionnaires by post.

The methodology used in this survey followed the SLDC consultation guidelines and included one mailing.

Information in respect to the council’s community engagement strategy is available on the council’s website - http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/services/community/community-engagement.aspx

Respondents

There were 1259 complete usable responses to the consultation, of these:

Total % of total Responses Dog owners 578 46% Non-dog owners 665 53% Not Answered 16 1%

This summary reports the headline results of the Clean Streets consultation. The full results including all comments and additional analysis is available on the consultation pages of the SLDC website.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 5

Headline Summary

In the spring edition of South Lakeland News it was reported that dog fouling was a problem for 81% of residents. In 2011 there were 146 reported incidents of dog fouling to SLDC. The majority of complaints were from residents living in the urban areas of South Lakeland; however there are still a significant number of complaints in rural areas. Communities also let the council know that dog fouling is a problem through their SLDC councillors and community or parish plans.

In response to these reports and the introduction of new legislation, SLDC would like to put Dog Control Orders in place which will help tackle the problems being reported by communities.

The new regulations specify the offences and the procedure for the introduction of Dog Control Orders. The offences proposed are: a) Failing to remove dog faeces b) Not putting and keeping a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer c) Excluding dogs from specified land; and d) Not keeping a dog on a lead where appropriate

The penalty for not complying with the Orders is a fine not exceeding level three, currently £1,000. As an alternative to being prosecuted in a magistrate’s court for such an offence an authorised officer may give an offender a notice offering the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty.

Dog Control Orders

Question 1: Do you support the general principal of Dog Control Orders?

All Respondents Dog owners / walkers Non-dog owners Total Total % of dog Total % of non- % of all Responses Responses owners Responses dog owners Yes 1,099 88% 466 81% 627 94% No 99 8% 89 15 % 11 2% Not 54 4% 23 4% 27 4% Answered

88% or respondents strongly support or support the general principle of dog control orders. The general principal of Dog Control Orders has more support from non-dog owners than it does from dog owners/walkers. However, three quarters of respondents who own or walk a dog for someone else are in support of the orders.

Fouling of Land by Dogs Order

The Fouling of Land by Dogs Order requires people in control of a dog to immediately remove faeces deposited by the dog. It is intended that this Order applies to all areas of land in South Lakeland open to the air and where the public have access (with or without payment). The Order would not apply to a registered blind person or someone who has a dog trained by a charity to support a person suffering from a mobility, manual dexterity disability or deafness.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 6

Question 2: Do you think there is a problem with dog fouling in your local area?

When asked about the issue of dog fouling 78% of all respondents thought there was a problem with dog fouling in their local area. 51% think it is a major problem (58% in the LA12 and LA23 postcode areas) and 47% a minor problem.

Not Answered

No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 973 77.72% No 235 18.77% Not 44 3.51% Answered

Yes

Question 3: If yes, how much of a problem is dog fouling in your local area?

Don't Not know Answered

Total Option Percentage Responses

Minor Major Yes 498 50.87% problem problem No 464 47.40% Not 9 0.92% Answered Not 8 0.82% Answered

Question 4: To what extent do you support the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order?

88% of all respondents strongly support or support the introduction of the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order (80% for dog owners/walkers). Only 7% don’t support and strongly don’t support this order (14% dog owners/walkers).

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 7

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 Total Responses 200 100 0 Strongly Support Neither / Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support Nor support don’t Answered support

Question 5: Do you have any concerns with the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order?

61% of respondents don’t have concerns with the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order. There were 438 comments about concerns of these 223 were about the enforcement of the order, that it is the few irresponsible owners who cause the problem and not responsible owners and a number mentioning the areas covered by the order and rural areas should be excluded from the order.

Question 6: Do you think there are any further ways to deal with dog fouling?

55% of respondents felt there were further ways to deal with dog fouling. 741 suggestions were made for how to do this, including 105 suggested more bins, 28 mentioned signage and 85 highlighted dog ownership issues.

Dogs on Leads by Direction Order

The Dogs on Leads by Direction Order requires people in control of a dog to put and keep the dog on a lead of not more than two metres (extendable leads locked at two metres) when told to do so by an authorised officer of the council. It is intended that this Order applies to all areas of land in South Lakeland open to the air and where the public have access(with or without payment), other than those areas covered by the Dogs on Leads Order or the Dog Exclusion Order. The power to direct a dog to be put on a lead can only be exercised if such restraint is reasonably necessary to prevent a nuisance to another person or to prevent the disturbance of an animal.

Question 7: To what extent do you support the Dogs on Leads by Direction Order?

80% of all respondents strongly support or support the introduction of the Dog Exclusion Order. More than a quarter of dog owners/walkers don’t support the Dog Exclusion Order, while 60% do support its introduction. This is compared to 91% of non-dog owners supporting the order and just 3% who don’t support it.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 8

700 600 500 400 300 200 Total Responses 100 0 Strongly Support Neither / Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support Nor support don’t Answered support

Question 8: Do you have any concerns with the Dogs on Leads by Direction Order?

65% of respondents don’t have any concerns with Dogs on Leads by Direction Orders. There were 404 comments made about concerns which again primarily include enforcement and balancing the control of dogs against their need to be able to run freely for exercise, some comments were made about officers being able to identify an out of control or dangerous dog versus one which is just excitable.

Dog Exclusion Order

The Dog Exclusion Order will prohibit dogs from certain areas unless there is a reasonable reason for failing to do so, or the owner, occupier, person having control of the land has consented to the dog being there. The Order would not apply to a registered blind person or someone who has a dog trained by a charity to support a person suffering from a mobility, manual dexterity disability or deafness.

Question 9: To what extent do you support the Dog Exclusion Order?

80% of all respondents strongly support or support the introduction of the Dog Exclusion Order. More than a quarter of dog owners/walkers don’t support the Dog Exclusion Order, while 60% do support its introduction. This is compared to 91% of non-dog owners supporting the order and just 3% who don’t support it. 700 600 500 400 300 200 Total Responses 100 0 Strongly Support Neither / Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support Nor support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 9

Question 10: Do you have any concerns with the Dog Exclusion Order?

64% of respondents don’t have any concerns with the exclusion order. In the 425 comments made respondents felt that dogs should be excluded from children’s’ play areas and dedicated sports pitches, however, the areas around them dogs should not be excluded, this was especially the case in the Yew Tree playing field where it was proposed to cover the whole area by the order. Enforcement of this order again was a concern for 58 respondents, along with the same concerns previously raised around dog ownership issues and the areas affected.

Dogs on Leads Order

The Dogs on Leads Order requires dogs to be kept on a lead in sets areas. An offence is committed unless the offender has reasonable reason for failing to do so, or the owner, occupier, person having control of the land has consented to the dog not being on a lead. It is proposed that the Order will cover the areas of South Lakeland listed below.

Question 11: To what extent do you support the Dogs on Leads Order for each of the following areas?

Highways and Footways (pavements) maintained by public funding

The introduction of the Dogs on Lead Order on highways and footways/pavements is strongly supported or supported by 84% of all respondents. Almost one in five dog owners/walkers who responded to the survey don’t support the Dogs on Lead Order on highways and footways, while nearly three quarters do support it. This is compared to 93% of non-dog owners who do support the order in these areas, while just 4% don’t support it.

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Total Responses 100 0 Strongly Support Neither / Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support Nor support don’t Answered support

All Cemeteries

The introduction of the Dogs on Lead Order in cemeteries is strongly supported or supported by 87% of respondents. Fewer than 1 in 10 dog owners/walkers don’t support the introduction of the Dogs on Leads Order in cemeteries, while more than four out of five support it. This is compared to 91% of non-dog owners supporting the order in these areas, with just 1% not supporting it.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 10

900 800 700 600 500 400 300

Total Responses 200 100 0 Strongly Support Neither / Don’t Strongly Don’t Not support Nor support don’t know Answered support

Promenades (Ambleside, Arnside, Bowness-on-Windermere, Grange-over-Sands)

The introduction of the Dogs on Lead Order for Promenades (Ambleside, Arnside, Bowness on Windermere, Grange-over-Sands) is strongly supported or supported by 74% of respondents. Almost a third of dog owners/walkers who responded to the survey do not support the introduction of the Dogs on Leads Order on promenades, with 17% strongly not in support of it. 3 in 5 support the order in these areas. This is compared to 89% of non-dog owners support the order and just over 5% not in support of the order on promenades.

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Total Responses 100 0 Strongly Support Neither / Don’t Strongly Don’t Not support Nor support don’t know Answered support

All areas covered by the Order 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 Total Responses 100 0 Strongly Support Neither / Don’t Strongly Don’t Not support Nor support don’t know Answered support

Highways & Footways Cemeteries Promenades

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 11

Question 12: Do you have any concerns with the Dogs on Leads Order?

66% don’t have concerns with the Dogs on Leads Order. Of those who do 367 made comments. 48 mentioned enforcement, A number of respondents to the consultation felt that Grange promenade should not be included in the order as it is used by many to exercise their dogs, it is the only level area in Grange for those with mobility problems to exercise their dogs, especially if the proposal for the exclusion order on Yew Tree Playing Fields isn’t amended. Respondents also felt it should be left to the owner’s discretion whether or not they feel their dog should be on a lead.

Public Urination and Defecation in the Street

Since 2008 the Police have reported 275 incidences of urination and defecation by members of the public in the streets of South Lakeland, with the highest number of reports in 2009 with 73. In 2011 there were 64 reports, and there have been 23 so far in 2012. The Police have advised that they are unable to respond to these complaints effectively under current legislation and asked SLDC to put the bylaw in place.

The creation of the Public Urination and Defecation in the Street Bylaw would allow the Police to take action straight away if an offender is caught. Any person offending against the bylaw can be fined up to £500.

The bylaw gives the Police the legal power to reduce the anti-social behaviour of public urination or defecation in the urban areas of South Lakeland, within the 30mph limits.

Question 13: To what extent do you support the Public Urination in the Street Bylaw?

The introduction of the Public Urination and Defecation in the Street Bylaw is strongly supported by 84% of all respondents. Only 7% of those who responded don’t support the introduction of the bylaw.

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 Total Responses 200 100 0 Strongly Support Neither / Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support Nor support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 12

Respondents Profile

Question 15: Do you own a dog or walk a dog for someone else?

46% of respondents to the consultation either own a dog or walk one for someone else.

Not Answered

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 577 46.09% Yes No 659 52.64% Not 16 1.28% No Answered

Question 17: What was your age at your last birthday?

Two thirds of those who responded to the consultation were aged between 51 and 80 years of age. Just 8% were below the age of 35.

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Under 16 7 0.56% 17-25 13 1.04% 26-35 86 6.87% 36-50 251 20.05% 51-65 479 38.26% 66-80 353 28.19% Over 80 42 3.36% Not Answered 21 1.68%

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 13

600

500

400

300

200 Total Responses

100

0 Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 Over 80 Not Answered

Question 18: Gender?

Not Answered

Total Option Percentage Responses Male Male 561 44.56% Female 675 53.61% Not 23 1.83% Female Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 14

Question 19: Do you have a long standing disability or infirmity?

11% of all respondents said that they have a long standing disability or infirmity. Of these, 80% said that this disability or infirmity limits their daily activities in some way.

Not Answered Yes

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 137 10.88% No 1086 86.26% Not 36 2.86% Answered

No

Question 20: Does this disability or infirmity limit your activities in any way?

Not Answered

No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 110 80.29% No 24 17.52% Not 3 2.19% Answered

Yes

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 15

Dog owners / Non-dog owners Consultation Analysis

Overview

This section analyses the views of dog owners (including those who walk a dog for someone else) compared to the views of non-dog owners in relation to the four proposed Dog Control Orders.

Total Number of dog owners / walkers: 578 Total Number of non-dog owners: 665 Not Answered: 16

Question 1: Do you support the general principal of Dog Control Orders?

Dog owners / walkers Non-dog owners Total % of total Total % of total non- Responses dog owners Responses dog owners Yes 466 80.62% 627 94.29% No 89 15.40% 11 1.65% Not Answered 23 3.98% 27 4.06%

The above figures show that the general principle of Dog Control Orders has more support from non-dog owners than it does from dog owners/walkers. However, three quarters of respondents who own or walk a dog for someone else are in support of the orders.

Fouling of Land by Dogs Order

Question 4: To what extent do you support the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order?

Dog owners / walkers Non-dog owners Total % of total Total % of total non- Responses dog owners Responses dog owners Strongly support 254 43.94% 528 79.40% Support 208 35.99% 112 16.84% Neither / Nor 25 4.33% 9 1.35% Don’t Support 45 7.79% 6 0.90% Strongly don’t support 37 6.40% 5 0.75% Don’t know 3 0.52% 2 0.30% Not Answered 6 1.04% 3 0.45%

14% of the dog owners/walkers who responded to the survey don’t support the introduction of the Fouling of Land by Dog Order, compared to less than 2% of non-dog owners. The overwhelming majority of both owners and non-owners do support the order.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 16

Dogs on Leads by Direction Order

Question 7: To what extent do you support the Dogs on Leads by Direction Order?

Dog owners / walkers Non-dog owners Total % of total Total % of total non- Responses dog owners Responses dog owners Strongly support 161 27.85% 459 69.02% Support 226 39.10% 153 23.01% Neither / Nor 68 11.76% 27 4.06% Don’t Support 57 9.86% 15 2.26% Strongly don’t support 52 9.00% 7 1.05% Don’t know 11 1.90% 1 0.15% Not Answered 3 0.52% 3 0.45%

Almost 1 in 5 dog owners/walkers don’t support the introduction of the Dogs on Leads by Direction Order, while two thirds do support it. This is compared to 92% of non-dog owners supporting its introduction, with just 3% not doing so.

Dog Exclusion Order

Question 9: To what extent do you support the Dog Exclusion Order?

Dog owners / walkers Non-dog owners Total % of total Total % of total non- Responses dog owners Responses dog owners Strongly support 173 29.93% 491 73.83% Support 178 30.80% 116 17.44% Neither / Nor 58 10.03% 28 4.21% Don’t Support 78 13.49% 12 1.81% Strongly don’t support 80 13.84% 10 1.50% Don’t know 9 1.56% 3 0.45% Not Answered 2 0.35% 5 0.75%

More than a quarter of dog owners/walkers don’t support the Dog Exclusion Order, while 60% do support its introduction. This is compared to 91% of non-dog owners supporting the order and just 3% who don’t support it.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 17

Dogs on Leads Order

Question 11: To what extent do you support the Dogs on Leads Order for each of the following areas?

Highways and Footways (pavements) maintained by public funding

Dog owners / walkers Non-dog owners Total % of total Total % of total non- Responses dog owners Responses dog owners Strongly support 251 43.43% 518 77.89% Support 176 30.45% 102 15.34% Neither / Nor 31 5.36% 16 2.41% Don’t Support 57 9.86% 15 2.26% Strongly don’t support 57 9.86% 10 1.50% Don’t know 1 0.17% 0 0.00% Not Answered 5 0.87% 4 0.60%

Almost one in five dog owners/walkers who responded to the survey don’t support the Dogs on Lead Order on highways and footways, while nearly three quarters do support it. This is compared to 93% of non-dog owners who do support the order in these areas, while just 4% don’t support it.

Cemeteries

Dog owners / walkers Non-dog owners Total % of total Total % of total non- Responses dog owners Responses dog owners Strongly support 295 51.04% 523 78.65% Support 177 30.62% 87 13.08% Neither / Nor 37 6.40% 23 3.46% Don’t Support 32 5.54% 11 1.65% Strongly don’t support 28 4.85% 6 0.90% Don’t know 2 0.35% 3 0.45% Not Answered 7 1.21% 12 1.80%

Fewer than 1 in 10 dog owners/walkers don’t support the introduction of the Dogs on Leads Order in cemeteries, while more than four out of five support it. This is compared to 91% of non-dog owners supporting the order in these areas, with just 1% not supporting it.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 18

Promenades (Ambleside, Arnside, Bowness-on-Windermere, Grange-over-Sands)

Dog owners / walkers Non-dog owners Total % of total Total % of total non- Responses dog owners Responses dog owners Strongly support 209 36.16% 502 75.49% Support 132 22.84% 92 13.83% Neither / Nor 41 9.09% 26 3.91% Don’t Support 85 14.71% 24 3.61% Strongly don’t support 99 17.13% 13 1.96% Don’t know 3 0.52% 2 0.30% Not Answered 9 1.56% 6 0.90%

Almost a third of dog owners/walkers who responded to the survey do not support the introduction of the Dogs on Leads Order on promenades, with 17% strongly not in support of it. 3 in 5 support the order in these areas. This is compared to 89% of non-dog owners support the order and just over 5% not in support of the order on promenades.

Conclusion

As would be expected, a higher number of dog owners and those who walk a dog for someone else don’t support the orders when compared to non-dog owners. However, the majority of dog owners/walkers support the introduction of the four orders, in most cases more than 75%. The order which has the least support from dog owners/walkers is the Dogs on Leads Order on Promenades.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 19

Consultation Analysis by Location

This report looks at the results of the consultation at a localised level. This has been done by analysing the results by postcode areas (as listed below) for each question. This gives a better picture of the feeling of residents at specific areas across South Lakeland.

These postcode areas have received more than 50 responses, making analysis more reliable.

Areas covered by Postcode Area Number of Responses LA9 Kendal, Burneside, , Natland 342 Grange-over-Sands, Allithwaite, Cartmel, Holker, LA11 187 Ulverston, Urswick, Haverthwaite, Newby Bridge, LA12 157 Lowick, Greenodd Staveley, Kentmere, Levens, Underbarrow, Whinfell LA8 147 ward area (east of Kendal) LA23 Windermere, Bowness, Troutbeck 102 Ambleside, Grasmere, Hawkshead, Skelwith, the LA22 59 Langdales LA6 Kirkby Lonsdale, Burton-in-Kendal, Holme 58 LA7 Milnthorpe, Heversham, Beetham, Crooklands 52

The report also summarises the comments made in regards to concerns with each order highlighting the common issues.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 20

Dog Control Orders

Question 1: Do you support the general principal of Dog Control Orders?

Postcode Area: LA9

Not No Answered

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 312 91.23% No 14 4.09% Not 16 4.68% Answered Yes

Postcode Area: LA11

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 151 80.75% No 29 15.51% Not 7 3.74% Answered

Yes

Postcode Area: LA12

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 142 90.45% No 8 5.10% Not 7 4.46% Answered

Yes

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 21

Postcode Area: LA8

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 130 88.44% No 10 6.80% Not Answered 7 4.76%

Yes

Postcode Area: LA23

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 94 92.16% No 5 4.90% Not Answered 3 2.94%

Yes

Postcode Area: LA22

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 53 89.83% No 4 6.78% Not 2 3.39% Answered

Yes

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 22

Postcode Area: LA6

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 52 86.66% No 4 6.90% Not 2 3.45% Answered

Yes

Postcode Area: LA7

No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 49 94.23% No 3 5.77% Not 0 0.00% Answered

Yes

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 23

Fouling of Land by Dogs Order

Question 2: Do you think there is a problem with dog fouling in your local area?

Postcode Area: LA9

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 286 83.63% No 41 11.99% Not 15 4.39% Answered

Yes

Postcode Area: LA11

Not Answered

No Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 128 68.45% No 53 28.34% Not 6 3.21% Yes Answered

Postcode Area: LA12

Not Answered

No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 132 84.08% No 22 14.01% Not 3 1.91% Answered

Yes

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 24

Postcode Area: LA8

Not Answered

No Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 102 69.39% No 41 27.89% Not 4 2.72% Answered Yes

Postcode Area: LA23

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 89 87.25% No 11 10.78% Not 2 1.96% Answered

Yes

Postcode Area: LA22

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 50 84.75% No 7 11.86% Not 2 3.39% Answered

Yes

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 25

Postcode Area: LA6

Not Answered

No Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 42 72.41% No 14 24.14% Not 2 3.45% Answered

Yes

Postcode Area: LA7

Not Answered No

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 41 78.85% No 10 19.23% Not 1 1.92% Answered

Yes

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 26

Question 3: If yes, how much of a problem is dog fouling in your local area?

Postcode Area: LA9

Total Option Percentage Minor Responses Problem Major Major 150 52.45% Problem problem Minor 136 47.55% problem

Postcode Area: LA11

Total Option Percentage Major Responses Minor Problem Major 82 48.44% Problem problem Minor 66 51.56% problem

Postcode Area: LA12

Don’t Not know Answered Total Option Percentage Responses Major 77 58.33% Minor problem Problem Minor 51 38.64% problem Major Don’t know 3 2.27% Problem Not 1 0.76% Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 27

Postcode Area: LA8 Not Don’t Answered know

Total Option Percentage Major Responses Problem Major 42 41.18% problem Minor 53 51.96% problem Minor Don’t know 3 2.94% Problem Not 4 3.92% Answered

Postcode Area: LA23

Minor Total Option Percentage Problem Responses Major 52 58.43% problem Major Minor Problem 37 41.57% problem

Postcode Area: LA22

Don’t know

Total Option Percentage Responses Major 25 50.00% problem Major Minor 23 46.00% Minor Problem problem Problem Don’t know 2 4.00% Not 0 0.00% Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 28

Postcode Area: LA6

Not Answered

Total Option Percentage Responses Major 23 52.47% Minor problem Problem Minor Major 17 40.48% Problem problem Don’t know 0 0.00% Not 2 4.76% Answered

Postcode Area: LA7

Total Option Percentage Responses Major 20 48.78% problem Major Minor Minor Problem 21 51.22% Problem problem Don’t know 0 0.00% Not 0 0.00% Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 29

Question 4: To what extent do you support the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order?

Postcode Area: LA9 300

250

200

150

100 Total Responses 50

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support Postcode Area: LA11 120

100

80

60

40 Total Responses 20

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA12 120

100

80

60

40 Total Responses 20

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 30

Postcode Area: LA8 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Total Responses 20 10 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA23 80

70

60

50

40

30

Total Responses 20

10

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA22 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Total Responses 10 5 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 31

Postcode Area: LA6 35

30

25

20

15

10 Total Responses 5

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA7 35

30

25

20

15

Total Responses 10

5

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Question 5: Do you have any concerns with the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order?

Postcode Area: LA9

There were 106 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. They have not been analysed for this report due to the overwhelming proportion of respondents who said that they would support the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order (as shown in question 4). However, these comments are available to view if required.

Postcode Area: LA11

There were 77 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement There were a lot of concerns (26 comments) from respondents about how the order will be properly enforced. Some felt that the costs to implement it would be too high, some thought that the

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 32

manpower needed wouldn’t be available, and others stated that there are already existing laws in effect which are not adhered to, so bringing new ones in won’t change this situation.

Ownership Issues There were 16 comments relating to ownership issues. The majority of these concerns were along the lines that responsible owners that clean up after their dog feel that they are being penalised for the minority that do not. There were also comments that felt that education was key to the problem.

Areas Affected There were 4 comments from respondents who felt that the order should be enforced in towns and villages, however it should not be enforced in open countryside, footpaths, fells etc.

Postcode Area: LA12

There were 50 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement There were a number of concerns (18 comments) from respondents about how the order will be properly enforced. Many questioned how the order would be properly enforced, while others stated that there are already existing laws in effect which are not adhered to, so bringing new ones in won’t change this situation. There were some comments about dog owners who pick up their dogs mess then leave the plastic bag, which should also be prosecuted.

Ownership Issues There were 4 comments relating to ownership issues. One of these was regarding sheepdogs working on public land. Others felt that responsible dog owners are being penalised because of a few irresponsible owners.

Areas Affected There were 15 comments from respondents who felt that the order should be enforced in towns and villages, however it should not be enforced in open countryside, footpaths, fells etc. Some felt that in these areas a ‘flick with a stick’ policy should be used as it would be impossible to enforce in open areas and there is nowhere to dispose of the waste.

Postcode Area: LA8

There were 46 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. They have not been analysed for this report due to the overwhelming proportion of respondents who said that they would support the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order (as shown in question 4). However, these comments are available to view if required.

Postcode Area: LA23

There were 29 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. They have not been analysed for this report due to the overwhelming proportion of respondents who said that they would support the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order (as shown in question 4). However, these comments are available to view if required.

Postcode Area: LA22

There were 20 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. They have not been analysed for this report due to the overwhelming proportion of respondents who said that they would support the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order (as shown in question 4). However, these comments are available to view if required.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 33

Postcode Area: LA6

There were 17 comments from residents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into two separate themes.

Enforcement There were 7 comments relating to the enforcement of the order. These included concerns with how it will be enforced, and the possibility that it could lead to malicious / false reporting by non-dog owners.

Areas Affected There were 5 comments related to the areas affected. Most of them were supportive of the order being in place in busy built up areas, pavements etc, but were concerned about the use of it in the open countryside, where there are no bins to dispose of dog waste, which leads to people leaving dog waste bags lying around.

Postcode Area: LA7

There were 18 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. They have not been analysed for this report due to the overwhelming proportion of respondents who said that they would support the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order (as shown in question 4). However, these comments are available to view if required.

Question 6: Do you think there are any further ways to deal with dog fouling?

Postcode Area: LA9

There were 191 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these comments can be broken down into four separate themes.

Enforcement 23 comments were related to enforcement issues. They included issuing heavier fines to offenders, increased monitoring including CCTV and more dog wardens, and better enforcement of existing laws.

Bins 25 comments highlighted the need for more dog waste bins throughout the area, especially in areas used by a high number of dog walkers.

Ownership 17 comments were related to ownership issues. The majority of these comments were about educating dog owners in how to be responsible owners in regards to cleaning up after their pet. There were also comments about introducing licenses to own a dog and raising awareness of the health and safety issues which arise from dog fouling.

Notices / Signs 3 comments highlighted the need for more anti-dog fouling notices.

Postcode Area: LA11

There were 116 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these comments can be broken down into four separate themes.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 34

Enforcement 47 comments were related to enforcement issues. They included issuing heavier fines to offenders, increased monitoring (including CCTV), more visible dog wardens, better enforcement of existing laws, introducing a name and shame policy for offending owners, employing officers to clean up dog waste, and encouraging the public to whistle blow on offenders.

Bins 23 comments highlighted the need for more dog waste bins and waste bag dispensers throughout the area, especially in areas used by a high number of dog walkers.

Ownership 14 comments were related to ownership issues. Some of these comments were about educating dog owners in how to be responsible in regards to cleaning up after their pet. There were also comments about introducing licenses to own a dog and raising awareness of the health and safety issues which arise from dog fouling.

Notices / Signs 10 comments highlighted the need for more anti-dog fouling notices, especially in areas used predominantly by dog walkers.

Postcode Area: LA12

There were 89 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these comments can be broken down into four separate themes.

Enforcement 28 comments were related to enforcement issues. They included issuing heavier fines to offenders, increased monitoring including CCTV and more dog wardens, better enforcement of existing laws, introducing a name and shame policy for offending owners, and encouraging the public to whistle blow on offenders.

Bins 14 comments highlighted the need for more dog waste bins and waste bag dispensers throughout the area, especially in areas used by a high number of dog walkers.

Ownership 21 comments were related to ownership issues. Some of these comments were about educating dog owners in how to be responsible owners in regards to cleaning up after their pet. There were also comments about introducing licenses to own a dog and raising awareness of the health and safety issues which arise from dog fouling.

Notices / Signs 2 comments highlighted the need for more anti-dog fouling notices.

Postcode Area: LA8

There were 29 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into two separate themes.

Enforcement There were 16 comments relating to enforcement. These included heavier fines, better enforcement of current legislation, more wardens, fines for those who bag the waste then leave the bags lying around, and DNA samples of faeces to link it to the dog responsible.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 35

Bins 10 comments highlighted the need for more dog waste bins around the area.

Postcode Area: LA23

There were 61 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these comments can be split down into five separate themes.

Enforcement There were 25 comments relating to enforcement. The majority of these comment stated that fines needed to be on the spot and higher to persistent offenders. Others also felt that offenders should be named and shamed, while there were also comments calling for the introduction of CCTV in the worst affected areas and the need for more dog wardens.

Bins 15 comments highlighted the need for more dog waste bins, especially in areas where there is a greater problem with dog fouling.

Ownership There were 11 comments relating to dog ownership. The majority of these felt that the education of owners in cleaning up after their dog is important, with two comments saying that it should also be taught in schools. Some felt that dogs should be licensed.

Notices / Signs 6 respondents felt that there needs to be more signs and notices displayed to highlight the issue.

Designated Areas 5 respondents stated that there should be designated areas where owners can take their dogs to exercise and foul.

Postcode Area: LA22

There were 29 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes; to this question. The majority of these comments can be split down into 4 separate themes.

Enforcement There were 16 comments relating to enforcement. The comments included a name and shame policy of offending dog owners, higher fines, require offenders to clear up a certain area of land, increase the number of wardens, and deal with owners who leave dog waste bags.

Bins 7 respondents highlighted the need for more dog waste bins to help combat dog fouling, especially in badly affected areas.

Ownership Issues There were 3 comments relation to ownership issues, including Dog DNA register, the education of owners, and the reintroduction of dog licenses.

Notices / Signs 3 respondents highlighted the need for more signs and notices to be put in place to enforce the issue.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 36

Postcode Area: LA6

There were 28 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these comments can be split down into four separate themes.

Enforcement There were 11 comments relating to enforcement. These comments included higher fines, naming and shaming offenders, more wardens – possibly traffic wardens, and targeting regular offenders and areas.

Bins 7 respondents highlighted the need for more bins around the area.

Ownership 7 comments were related to ownership issues. The majority of these comments were about educating owners to be more responsible.

Notices / Signs There were 4 comments indicating the need for more notices and signs and introducing some publicity campaigns to highlight the issue to the general public.

Postcode Area: LA7

There were 20 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these comments can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement There were 6 comments relating to enforcement. These included making sure that penalties are properly issued, CCTV, and making guilty owners go on ‘poop scoop patrol’.

Bins 4 respondents highlighted the need for more bins, especially in problem areas.

Ownership Issues There were 8 comments relating to ownership issues. Some felt that education was key to dealing with dog fouling, both owners as well as children. There were also concerns that responsible owners are getting penalised because of irresponsible owners.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 37

Dogs on Leads by Direction Order

Question 7: To what extent do you support the Dogs on Leads by Direction Order?

Postcode Area: LA9 250

200

150

100

Total Responses 50

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA11 80 70 60 50 40 30

Total Responses 20 10 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA12 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Total Responses 20 10 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 38

Postcode Area: LA8 80 70 60 50 40 30

Total Responses 20 10 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA23 70

60

50

40

30

Total Responses 20

10

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA22 35

30

25

20

15

Total Responses 10

5

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 39

Postcode Area: LA6 30

25

20

15

10 Total Responses 5

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA7 35

30

25

20

15

10 Total Responses 5

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Question 8: Do you have any concerns with the Dogs on Leads by Direction Order?

Postcode Area: LA9

There were 97 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement 17 comments were related to enforcement issues. The majority of these comments were concerns in how the order will be enforced. Some respondents felt that there wouldn’t be enough authorised officers needed to properly enforce it, while others felt that the costs incurred in enforcing the order would be too high.

Ownership Issues There were 11 comments relating to ownership issues. The main concern from most of these respondents was that they feel that their dogs need time off the lead in order to gain the amount of physical exercise it requires. Some also state that their dog does not have to be on a lead in order for them to have full control over it.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 40

Areas affected 6 respondents stated that if the order were to be introduced, there would have to be areas set aside where dogs are allowed to run freely. One respondent gave an example of this in Toronto, Canada.

Postcode Area: LA11

There were 69 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes, as well as a comment submitted by Grange Town Council.

Enforcement 10 respondents were concerned about how this order could be enforced. These concerns included how the authorised officers will be identified and if there will be a sufficient number in order to enforce the order.

Ownership Issues There were comments relating to ownership issues. The majority of these comments are concerns that the majority of dog owners are responsible and that their dog does not have to be on a lead to be under controlled.

Areas Affected The 4 comments related to the areas affected included those with limited mobility need to exercise their dog off the lead and may not be able to access open countryside areas etc, places should be provided where dogs can run free (area suggested top end of Grange Playing Field towards Kents Bank Road).

Grange Town Council “We support this in principle. However, in earlier information provided by SLDC, there has not been a huge amount of patrolling by dog wardens. And the consultation says that this situation is unlikely to change. Therefore, we question whether the law will be enforced - and if not, we consider that this weakens any potential law considerably.”

Postcode Area: LA12

There were 38 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into two separate themes.

Enforcement 8 comments voiced concerns relating to how the order will be enforced. Some felt that there may not be enough authorised officers to properly enforce it, while others felt that it may be used inappropriately by people unauthorised to do so.

Ownership Issues 7 comments related to ownership issues. Some respondents felt that their dogs do not need to be on a lead to be under control, whilst also needing time off the lead to be properly exercised. Others feel that they are being penalised because of non-responsible dog owners.

Postcode Area: LA8

There were 38 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 41

Enforcement 10 respondents were concerned about how the order could be enforced. The comments included who would enforce the order, the number of officers needed to do so, the cost of enforcing it and who defines a dog as being out of control.

Ownership Issues There were 9 comments related to ownership issues. The two main issues were that dogs need time off the lead in order to exercise, and that many dogs don’t need to be on a lead to be under control.

Order Issues 3 comments highlighted that dog leads that extend to up to 2m are unacceptable as they do not keep dogs under control and cause a risk of tangling or tripping.

Postcode Area: LA23

There were 30 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into two separate themes.

Enforcement There were 7 comments asking how the order will be enforced. There were concerns that it could be imposed with too heavy a hand, that there are already orders in place in some areas which aren’t adhered to, and that there won’t be enough officer to enforce it properly.

Ownership Issues There were 17 comments relating to ownership issues. One main concern was that some dogs don need to be on a lead to be under control. The other main concern is that dogs need to be off the lead in order to exercise properly. Some also felt that responsible dog owners know when their dogs should be on a lead and when not.

Postcode Area: LA22

There were 18 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. They have not been analysed for this report due to the overwhelming proportion of respondents who said that they would support the Dogs on Leads by Direction Order (as shown in question 7). However, these comments are available to view if required.

Postcode Area: LA6

There were 14 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into two separate themes.

Enforcement 6 comments were related to how the order will be enforced. Most of those concerned felt that it would be too difficult to enforce at all times.

Ownership Issues There were 6 comments related to ownership issues. Most felt that dogs don’t need to be on a lead in order to be under control. One respondent felt that the order may have an adverse effect on tourism, as many like to walk their dogs freely while visiting the area.

Postcode Area: LA7

There were 14 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. They have not been analysed for this report due to the overwhelming proportion of respondents who said that they

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 42 would support the Dogs on Leads by Direction Order (as shown in question 7). However, these comments are available to view if required.

Dog Exclusion Order

Question 9: To what extent do you support the Dog Exclusion Order?

Postcode Area: LA9 250

200

150

100 Total Responses 50

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA11 90

80

70

60

50

40

30 Total Responses 20

10

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 43

Postcode Area: LA12 120

100

80

60

40 Total Responses 20

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA8 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Total Responses 20 10 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA23 60

50

40

30

20 Total Responses 10

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 44

Postcode Area: LA22 40 35 30 25 20 15

Total Responses 10 5 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA6 35

30

25

20

15

Total Responses 10

5

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA7 35

30

25

20

15

Total Responses 10

5

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 45

Question 10: Do you have any concerns with the Dog Exclusion Order?

Postcode Area: LA9

There were 96 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement A significant number of respondents (21) voiced concerns over the ability to enforce the Dog Exclusion Orders.

Ownership Issues 16 respondents have concerns relating to ownership issues. One of the issues that was raised a few times was the problem of having a small child and a dog, and the inability of these families to be able to use children’s play areas while exercising their dog at the same time. This was also stated in relation to watching sports with dogs. Another issue that was stated a number of times are that responsible dog owners that clean up after their dogs and have them under control at all times are being penalised for non-responsible dog owners.

Areas Affected The majority of comments (30) were related to the areas affected by the Dog Exclusion Orders. One of the main issues was with which parts of the affected areas should and should not be covered. Many respondents felt that play areas and sports pitches should be covered by the order, but that the land surrounding these areas should not. Reasons for this are that they are used predominantly by dog walkers and little else, and many residents use these areas on a daily basis to exercise their dogs and would find it of great inconvenience if they were excluded. Others commented that if these areas were included in the order, it would only increase the use of other areas in the town. In relation to specific areas, the Kendal Leisure Centre came up on a couple of occasions as some dog owners drop off/collect their children from the centre whilst also exercising their dog at the same time, or the dog may be in their car while they are visiting the centre.

Postcode Area: LA11

There were 87 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes, as well as a comment submitted by Grange Town Council.

Enforcement 7 respondents were concerned about how the order will be enforced, mainly how it will be enforced without the constant presence of an authorised officer.

Ownership Issues There were 20 comments related to ownership issues. Some of these comments were from respondents concerned that responsible dog owners who have control of their dog and clean up after it are being penalised because of the few irresponsible owners who do not do this. Others felt that elderly residents would suffer because they are unable to access areas out of town and rely on place such as the Playing Fields to exercise their dogs. Another issue is that some people like to take their dogs with them to watch football on the sports pitches or when they take their children to the play areas.

Areas Affected There were also 24 comments from respondents relating to the areas affected by the Dog Exclusion Order. The majority of these concerns were related to which parts of the areas proposed for exclusion should and should not be included. Many felt that they Yew Tree playing field and playground should be included, however the outskirts of the area should be exempt from the

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 46

exclusion as many people use these spaces for exercising their dog. Some suggested that a fence may be erected to separate the exclusion area form the non-excluded area. There were also comments from respondents that felt that if the order were to be introduced, there would need to be an easily accessible designated area where dogs are allowed to exercise of the lead.

Grange Town Council “In earlier information provided by SLDC, there has not been a huge amount of patrolling by dog wardens. And the consultation says that this situation is unlikely to change. Therefore, we question whether the law will be enforced - and if not, we consider that this weakens any potential law considerably. We would like to see dogs excluded ONLY from children's playing areas and the football pitch, NOT from the whole of the Memorial Playing Fields.”

Postcode Area: LA12

There were 40 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement 8 respondents have voiced concerns about how the Dog Exclusion Orders will be enforced and policed.

Ownership Issues 4 were concerned that they wouldn’t be able to take their dog with them when taking children to use playgrounds and playing fields.

Areas affected There were a 11 comments relating to the areas affected by the orders. Some mentioned that the order should be extended to certain beaches. Some comments highlight that dogs need exercise and these areas are used by owners to do so. There were a couple of concerns that if the orders were to be introduced on the proposed areas, it would only force dogs/owners into other areas, therefore only distributing the problem rather than solving it. One comment mentions that Ford Park in Ulverston recently introduced a dog friendly side and a dog free side. However this has resulted in owners not cleaning up mess on the dog friendly side.

Postcode Area: LA8

There were 38 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split into three separate themes.

Enforcement 4 comments were concerned about how the orders will be enforced.

Ownership Issues There were 10 comments relating to ownership issues. These concerns included families with young children like to use the play areas while also taking their dog with them, responsible owners are being penalised for irresponsible owners, dogs need exercise, and the elderly use the areas to exercise their dogs and cannot access other areas due to mobility.

Areas Affected There were 8 comments related to the areas affected by the order. Most respondents said that they agreed that dogs should be kept off play areas and playing fields, but the land around should not be excluded. One respondent said that it should be extended to school grounds.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 47

Postcode Area: LA23

There were 32 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement There were 7 comments concerned with how the order will be enforced. These included that there is unlikely to always be an officer present, current exclusion orders aren’t obeyed and the problem that dogs may unintentionally wander into excluded areas by accident.

Ownership Issues There were 9 comments relating to ownership issues. Some are concerned that responsible dogs owners are being penalised because of irresponsible owners. Others feel that it would be enough to have dogs on a lead in these areas, while some respondents like to take their children and dog to these areas at the same time.

Areas Affected 4 comments were in relation to the areas affected. These respondents felt that dogs should be excluded from children’s play areas and dedicated sports pitches; however the areas around them should not become excluded to dog owners. One mentioned the introduction of dog parks.

Postcode Area: LA22

There were 19 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement There were 7 comments related to the enforcement of the order. The majority were concerned that would be difficult to enforce the order at all times.

Ownership Issues 4 comments were related to ownership issues. These included the responsible dog owners being penalised because of irresponsible owners, and allowing dogs in the proposed areas if they are under control and cleaned up after.

Areas Affected 3 respondents had concerns about the areas affected. They included that the area in Rothey Park proposed would need fencing off, that only play areas should be affected, and that excluding dogs will only cause problems elsewhere.

Postcode Area: LA6

There were 16 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement 4 comments were concerned about how the order will be enforced.

Ownership Issues There were 3 comments related to ownership issues. They included penalising responsible owners because of the irresponsible, that dogs need areas to exercise freely, and that families with children like to visit play areas with their dog.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 48

Areas Affected There were 3 comments concerned about the areas affected. They included allowing dogs on leads around sports pitches and play areas, and including Kirkby Lonsdale park but not Jubilee Park.

Postcode Area: LA7

There were 13 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to the above question. They have not been analysed for this report due to the overwhelming proportion of respondents who said that they would support the Dog Exclusion Order (as shown in question 9). However, these comments are available to view if required.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 49

Dogs on Leads Order

Question 11: To what extent do you support the Dogs on Leads Order for each of the following areas?

Postcode Area: LA9

All areas covered by the Order 250

200

150

100 Total Responses 50

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Highways & Footways Cemeteries Promenades

As can be seen when looking at the above chart, out of the three proposed areas to be covered by the Dogs on Leads Orders, Promenades had the most Don’t support / Strongly don’t support responses. However, the number was significantly small in comparison to those that do support it.

Postcode Area: LA11

All areas covered by the Order 140 120 100 80 60 40 Total Responses 20 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Highways & Footways Cemeteries Promenades

As can be seen when looking at the above chart, out of the three areas affected by the Dogs on Leads Order, Promenades had the most Don’t support / Strongly don’t support responses.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 50

Postcode Area: LA12

All areas covered by the order 120

100

80

60

40 Total REsponses Total

20

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Highways & Footways Cemeteries Promenades

As can be seen when looking at the above chart, all three areas affected by the order had similar Don’t support / Strongly don’t support responses. However, the number was significantly small in comparison to those that do support it.

Postcode Area: LA8

All areas covered by the order 120

100

80

60

40 Total Responses

20

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Highways & Footways Cemeteries Promenades

As can be seen from the chart above, the overwhelming majority of respondents support the Dogs on Leads Order.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 51

Postcode Area: LA23

All areas covered by the order 80

70

60

50

40

30 Total Responses 20

10

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Highways & Footways Cemeteries Promenades

As can be seen from the above chart, out of three proposed areas to be covered by the Dogs on Leads Order, Promenades had slightly more Don’t support / Strongly don’t support responses. However, the number was significantly small when compared to those who do support it.

Postcode Area: LA22

All areas covered by the order 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Total Responses 10 5 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Highways & Footways Cemeteries Promenades

As can be seen from the chart above, the overwhelming majority of respondents support the Dogs on Leads Order.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 52

Postcode Area: LA6

All areas covered by the orders 40

35

30

25

20

15

Total Responses 10

5

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Highways & Footways Cemeteries Promenades

As can be seen from the chart above, out of the three proposed areas to be covered by the Dogs on Leads Orders, Promenades had the most Don’t support / Strongly don’t support responses. However, the number was significantly small in comparison to those that do support it.

Postcode Area: LA7

All areas covered by the order 40

35

30

25

20

15 Total Responses 10

5

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Highways & Footways Cemeteries Promenades

As can be seen from the chart above, out of the three proposed areas to be covered by the Dogs on Leads Orders, Promenades had the most Don’t support / Strongly don’t support responses. However, the number was significantly small in comparison to those that do support it.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 53

Question 12: Do you have any concerns with the Dogs on Leads Order?

Postcode Area: LA9

There were 78 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into four separate categories.

Enforcement 16 respondents have concerns relating to how the Order will be enforced. These include concerns that the Order will be ignored by some people, and who will be responsible to enforce it. Ownership Issues The majority of the comments (28) were related to ownership issues. One of the main concerns was that dogs need of-the-lead exercise, especially on highways and footways in the area. Another concern is that many owners feel that they have got full control of their dog whether it is on a lead or not. Some respondents feel that having dogs on leads won’t stop them fouling and that it depends on the owners whether they pick it up or not. In relation to cemeteries, a few comments were from owners who like to take their dog to visit a family grave. As with the Dogs on Leads by Direction and Exclusion Orders, many owners feel that they are being penalised because of non-responsible dog owners.

Areas Affected 10 comments were related to the areas affected. One of the issues was that it seems unnecessary to include all highways and footways in the order. Two respondents felt that Grange Promenade shouldn’t be included due to the construction of it and that it is away from the main road.

Order Issues 6 respondents feel that the ‘Highways and Footways’ category is too broad, while a few commented that extendable leads can be more of a hazard than a dog off the lead (trip hazard etc).

Postcode Area: LA11

There were 83 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these comments can be split down into three separate themes, as well as a comment submitted by Grange Town Council.

Enforcement 14 comments were concerned about how the order will be enforced. Concerns included the cost of enforcement, over use of the order when not necessary, and possible confrontation if a member of the public asks for a dog to be put on a lead when no officers are present.

Ownership Issues 29 comments were related to issues with ownership. Most of these comments are related to the Grange Promenade. One of the main concerns is that responsible dog owners know when they should put their dog on a lead and when it is okay to allow their dog off the lead (dependant on how busy it is on the Prom). They also feel that they are being penalised for irresponsible owners. Another main concern is that many owners feel that they don’t need to have their dogs on a lead in order for them to be under control. Some feel that having a dog on a lead will not solve the problem of dog fouling as some owners don’t pick it up even when the dog is on its lead. Another issue that was highlighted was that many residents in Grange have limited mobility and use the Promenade to exercise their pets due to its easy access. This issue was not just related to residents with mobility issues, as the prom is used by many to exercise their dogs off the lead.

Areas Affected There were 14 comments relating to the areas affected. Some feel that the Grange Promenade should not be included in the order as it sis used by many to exercise their dogs and that it should

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 54

be left to the owners discretion whether or not they feel their dog should be on a lead. Others feel that dogs should be excluded from cemeteries completely. There were a couple of comments stating that the order should be rolled out to all public places, in Grange the Park Road Gardens and Ornamental Gardens were mentioned by one respondent.

Grange Town Council “We support the proposal for a dogs on leads order for the pavements around the town, and also on roads without pavements within the built up area - mainly because of the change in behaviour this brings about (not running at people, safer interaction between dogs and cars / bikes and so on). However, the term 'highways maintained by public funding' also includes public footpaths and bridleways. It would not be appropriate for such an order to apply to rights of way such as this. The whole of Grange Promenade will be designated a dogs on lead area. We question whether there is really the need for this as a recent SLDC patrol report stated that there "was no evidence of major problems". If that is the case, then an order changing the status quo is unlikely to achieve much. There are instances where dogs do foul the promenade, and it is not cleared up. But this is the fault of the owners, not the dog - and we question whether making dogs be on leads will actually change this? We would like to see some empirical evidence that having dogs on leads reduces un-removed fouling incidents. Secondly - the map provided is confusing. It appears to extend the dogs on lead area to the sands south of the subway at Yew Tree Playing Fields. There is no promenade here, so presumably this is an error. If not - then there seems little justification in having one area of the sands a dogs on lead area. Finally, in earlier information provided by SLDC, there has not been a huge amount of patrolling by dog wardens. And the consultation says that this situation is unlikely to change. Therefore, we question whether the law will be enforced - and if not, we consider that this weakens any potential law considerably.”

Postcode Area: LA12

There were 37 comments from residents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement 11 comments were linked to how the order will be enforced. These included concerns on how it will be enforced and who will enforce it. There were some comments highlighting that the police should enforce existing laws relating to out of control dogs.

Ownership Issues There were 9 comments relating to ownership. The majority of comments were stating that many dogs do not need to be on lead in order to be under control. Other concerns were that having dogs on leads will not prevent fouling, dogs need time off the lead for valuable exercise, and owners should be able to use their discretion as to whether their dog should be on a lead or not.

Areas Affected There were 8 comments relating to the areas affected. Some of the comments are concerned that all ‘highways and footways’ is too broad, and that away from the town centre this isn’t necessary (small villages, countryside, farm dogs etc). Other comments include excluding dogs from shore lines during avian breeding season, excluding the Grange Promenade as it is a popular area for people to exercise their dogs, and more policing of The Gill area of Ulverston due to high levels of dog fouling.

Postcode Area: LA8

There were 37 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into two separate themes.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 55

Ownership Issues There were 8 comments relating to ownership issues. Most of these were highlighting that many dogs don’t need to be on a lead in order to be under control.

Areas Affected 16 comments were related to ownership issues. Some felt that the order should be enforced in busy areas and town centres; however it should not apply on quite country lanes or small villages. In relation to promenades, some felt that if they were near traffic they should be on a lead, but if not there was no need. Some were concerned that the order might spread to other areas, leading to fewer areas to exercise dogs.

Postcode Area: LA23

There were 19 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these comments can be split down into four separate themes.

Enforcement There were 2 comments regarding enforcement. One asked how it would be enforced, and the other questioned the current legislation already in place.

Ownership Issues There were 4 comments relating to ownership issues. These concerns included the danger of dog owners being alienated and the elderly and infirm being unable to access open space to exercise their dog.

Areas Affected 3 comments were related to the areas affected. Two respondents felt that dogs shouldn’t have to be kept on leads on all footways (i.e. rural areas), while one said that they should be on a lead in all public areas.

Future Issues 2 respondents were worried that the orders could lead to more restrictions on where members of the public are able to walk their dogs.

Postcode Area: LA22

There were 15 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into three separate themes.

Enforcement 5 respondents were concerned about how the order will be enforced.

Ownership Issues 3 comments were related to ownership. They included that dogs don’t need to be on a lead to be under control and that dogs require of the lead exercise.

Areas Affected 3 comments were related to the areas affected. They included signposting where the orders are in effect, and that dogs should be allowed off the lead where they will cause no problems i.e. open countryside.

Postcode Area: LA6

There were 12 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into two separate themes.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 56

Ownership Issues 2 respondents felt that dogs do not need to be on a lead in order to be under control.

Areas Affected 2 respondents felt that quite rural highways and footways shouldn’t be included in the order. One felt that there shouldn’t be a blanket ban on all promenades, i.e. Grange.

Postcode Area: LA7

There were 11 comments from respondents who answered ‘Yes’ to this question. The majority of these concerns can be split down into two separate themes.

Ownership Issues There were 4 comments relating to ownership issues. These included that well trained dogs may not need to be on a lead to be under control, the owners are best placed to decide when they should be on a lead, responsible owners are being penalised, and that elderly and infirm residents may struggle to exercise their dogs elsewhere.

Areas Affected There were 4 comments related to the areas affected by the order. They were all related to the highways and footways order. They felt that it should be in place in busy areas, but not quiet country lanes. 2 felt that it should also only apply to specified cemeteries.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 57

Public Urination and Defecation in the Street

Question 13: To what extent do you support the Public Urination in the Street Bylaw?

Postcode Area: LA9 250

200

150

100

Total Responses 50

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA11 140

120

100

80

60

40 Total Responses

20

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA12 120

100

80

60

40 Total Responses 20

0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 58

Postcode Area: LA8 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Total Responses 20 10 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA23 80 70 60 50 40 30

Total Responses 20 10 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA22 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Total Responses 10 5 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 59

Postcode Area: LA6 40 35 30 25 20 15

Total Responses 10 5 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Postcode Area: LA7 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 Total Responses 10 5 0 Strongly Support Neither/Nor Don’t Strongly Don’t know Not support support don’t Answered support

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 60

Respondents Profile

Question 15: Do you own a dog or walk one for someone else?

Postcode Area: LA9

Not Answered

Total Option Percentage Yes Responses Yes 138 40.35% No 200 58.48% No Not 4 1.17% Answered

Postcode Area: LA11

Not Answered

Total Option Percentage Responses No Yes 99 52.94% Yes No 86 45.99% Not 2 1.07% Answered

Postcode Area: LA12

Not Answered

Total Option Percentage Yes Responses Yes 58 36.94% No 98 62.42% Not 1 0.64% No Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 61

Postcode Area: LA8

Percentage of Total Option Total Responses Responses Yes Yes 70 47.62% No No 77 52.38% Not 0 0.00% Answered

Postcode Area: LA23

Not Answered

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes Yes 44 43.14% No 57 55.88% No Not 1 0.98% Answered

Postcode Area: LA22

Total Option Percentage Yes Responses Yes 24 40.68% No 35 59.32% Not No 0 0.00% Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 62

Postcode Area: LA6

Total Option Percentage Responses

No Yes 31 53.45% Yes No 27 46.55% Not 0 0.00% Answered

Postcode Area: LA7

Not Answered

Total Option Percentage Responses No Yes 29 55.77% No 22 42.31% Yes Not 1 1.92% Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 63

Question 17: What was your age at your last birthday?

Postcode Area: LA9 140

120

100

80

60

40 Total Responses

20

0 Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 Over 80 Not Answered

Postcode Area: LA11 80 70 60 50 40 30

Total Responses 20 10 0 Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 Over 80 Not Answered

Postcode Area: LA12 80

70

60

50

40

30

Total Responses 20

10

0 Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 Over 80 Not Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 64

Postcode Area: LA8 70

60

50

40

30

Total Responses 20

10

0 Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 Over 80 Not Answered

Postcode Area: LA23 40

35

30

25

20

15

Total Responses 10

5

0 Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 Over 80 Not Answered

Postcode Area: LA22 25

20

15

10 Total Responses 5

0 Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 Over 80 Not Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 65

Postcode Area: LA6 25

20

15

10 Total Responses 5

0 Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 Over 80 Not Answered

Postcode Area: LA7 25

20

15

10 Total Responses 5

0 Under 16 17-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66-80 Over 80 Not Answered

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 66

Question 18: Gender?

Postcode Area: LA9

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Male 140 40.94% Female 201 58.77%

Postcode Area: LA11

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Male 82 43.85% Female 100 53.48% Not Answered 5 2.67%

Postcode Area: LA12

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Male 71 45.22% Female 86 57.78%

Postcode Area: LA8

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Male 66 44.90% Female 81 55.10% Not Answered 0 0.00%

Postcode Area: LA23

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Yes 3 2.94% No 98 96.08% Not Answered 1 0.98%

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 67

Postcode Area: LA22

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Male 30 50.85% Female 28 47.46% Not Answered 1 1.70%

Postcode Area: LA6

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Male 28 48.28% Female 30 51.72% Not Answered 0 0.00%

Postcode Area: LA7

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Male 26 50.00% Female 23 44.23% Not Answered 3 5.77%

Question 19: Do you have a long-standing disability or infirmity?

Postcode Area: LA9

Not Answered Yes

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 45 13.16% No 289 84.50% Not 8 2.34% Answered

No

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 68

Postcode Area: LA11

Not Answered Yes

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 24 12.83% No 157 83.96% Not 6 3.21% Answered

No

Postcode Area: LA12

Not Answered Yes

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 20 12.74% No 132 84.08% Not 5 3.19% Answered

No

Postcode Area: LA8

Not Answered Yes

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 17 11.56% No 127 86.39% Not 3 2.04% Answered

No

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 69

Postcode Area: LA23

Not Yes Answered

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 3 2.94% No 98 96.08% Not 1 0.98% Answered

No

Postcode Area: LA22

Not Answered Yes

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 7 11.86% No 50 84.75% Not 2 3.39% Answered

No

Postcode Area: LA6

Yes

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 2 3.45% No 56 96.55% Not 0 0.00% Answered

No

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 70

Postcode Area: LA7

Not Answered Yes

Total Option Percentage Responses Yes 6 11.54% No 44 84.62% Not 2 3.85% Answered

No

Question 20: If yes, does this disability or infirmity limit your activities in any way?

Postcode Area: LA9

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Yes 35 77.78% No 10 22.22%

Postcode Area: LA11

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Yes 20 83.33% No 4 16.67%

Postcode Area: LA12

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Yes 14 70.00% No 5 25.00% Not Answered 1 5.00%

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 71

Postcode Area: LA8

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Yes 15 88.24% No 1 5.88% Not Answered 1 5.88%

Postcode Area: LA23

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Yes 1 33.33% No 2 66.67% Not Answered 0 0.00%

Postcode Area: LA22

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Yes 7 100.00% No 0 0.00% Not Answered 0 0.00%

Postcode Area: LA6

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Yes 1 50.00% No 1 50.00% Not Answered 0 0.00%

Postcode Area: LA7

Total Percentage of Option Responses Total Responses Yes 6 100.00% No 0 0.00% Not Answered 0 0.00%

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 72

Comments by Question

Fouling of Land by Dogs Order

Question 5: Do you have any concerns with the Fouling of Land by Dogs Order? 441 comments

Disability exclusions are too wide-Deafness? I support the idea of The Fouling of Land by Dogs Order but am concerned that all that will happen is that it will be introduced but not actively be enforced. The current legislation is fairly adequate but fines are rarely enforced and I have never seen a dog warden in areas where there are fouling problems When one goes for a walk it is very unpleasant to see fouling. In particular in and around Parks and green areas where children tend to play. Responsible dog owners always carry bags to remove the faeces and complain about irresponsible dog owners who don't. It can also cause disease. Not needed where rough grass, nettles etc. The people who are responsible dog owners will suffer , often the elderly who are good dog owners. 90% of owners are responsible it is a minority who make problems for the majority The actual town seems clean it is more on the public footpaths around the town. Also people leave full poo bags. A dog owner near us just lets his dogs run around not watching them. He then just shouts them in and goes in himself. Fouling pavements and village greens. What about working sheepdog at work on public land? Major health hazard particularly in warm weather (flies). If not on footpath it is not a problem Fouling in urban areas (including villages and hamlets), parks, children's play areas and sports grounds should already be offences, yet still the problem exists. Carrying this on to cover all public land is over zealous and unenforceable, particularly if it will also cover the vast tracks of land such as Forestry Commission, National Trust, LDNP, open fell, areas under CROW, etc. A policy of 'stick and flick' to remove waste from footpaths should be encouraged in areas away from dwellings, or training dogs to go to the toilet off paths in the undergrowth. I have noticed in my area an increase in the amount of dog waste picked up in plastic bags by well-meaning dog owners visiting the forest, who then have nowhere to deposit it, so dump the filled bags, or even tie them onto tree branches. If they had simply flicked it into the undergrowth it would disappear naturally within days, instead of now having a plastic protected turd and a bag. If the order is put in place I envisage this problem only growing, unless the council is also proposing to fill the countryside with bins and pay an army of people to empty them. People use the playing field on Brockbeck for their dogs to foul. I support it in towns and villages but not in the open countryside. Better to flick poo off paths and roads to degrade than have people collecting in bags and then hanging the bags on bushes etc. Law needs to be more specific How on earth are you going to enforce it? I personally think it should apply to any dog owner/walker except guide dogs. Enforcement of the order It is important that dog owners take a responsible attitude to dog fouling, this should include, WHERE SENSIBLE removal of dog faeces i.e. in a residential area or near public amenities but not on open fells. In this area it should still be dealt with responsibly and not left on paths. Should be restricted to pavements, parks and road, not rough, open moors/fells. Some faeces cannot be picked up! Although I strongly support the removal of dog faeces from heavily used areas and places such as parks, footpaths etc, whilst in more isolated spots such as woodlands or on the beach, there needs to be opportunity for discression to be used when deciding whether dog faeces need collecting. If it is made mandatory for it to be collected on each occasion, there are a number of unwanted effects:-dog

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 73 owners out and about on longer walks away from suitable places to dispose of used poop scoops risk their own health by then needing to store poop scoops until they can put it in a bin. -Dog faeces will, in a natural area where it is strongly unlikely that someone will come across the faeces, decompose fairly rapidly and not cause significant environmental impact. Collecting the faeces in a plastic bag, even if so called 'biodegradable', whilst necessary in some areas, simply adds to landfill when it is collected and disposed of in rubbish bins unnecessarily. Other options could be explored in rural areas such as woodlands and on farmland, for example I have seen signs in some areas in North Wales I believe, saying 'flick with a stick' with a cartoon picture of someone flicking dog poo off the path into the undergrowth- surely this action has to be preferable to that of adding yet more to the landfill and your waste bins? It solves the hazard of someone getting it on their feet, means the dog owner doesn't have the hazard of transporting faeces to a bin and reduces landfill. Many thanks for reading my ideas. In order to remove it there has to be somewhere to deposit it. Bins need to be replaced and re positioned in areas where dog recreation takes place. its no good saying SLDC provide 1000's of bins throughout the district if they are in the wrong places. Bins need to be placed dog walking routes, so that walkers can deposit it. Take the access / exit to serpentine woods in Kendal a very popular starting point for exercising dogs. The Tram rout and all the other entrances to the golf course and fells from this side of town -there is not one bin. its no wonder fouling is left. where are the bins on paths to the river walks in Kendal - dogs do business at the start of walks yet there are no bins to deposit into. if you are serious about this then you need to review the distribution of bins with those who walk dogs. SLDC have a duty to those with Dogs as well as those who don’t. i accept the ban on dogs on the playing fields at grange. but cannot accept that the problem of dog fouling on the promenade is significant enough to warrant "dogs on lead" or the banning of dogs from the prom. Many widowed ladies walk their dogs here and grange being hilly have no other alternative. there is a more serious issue and one that infringes our human rights and inevitably punishes law abiding citizens instead of punishing those who allow their dogs to foul the prom whether on a lead or free running Some dog owners pick up poop but then leave the bags on paths or in bushes. Please provide more bins on public rights of way. There are very few dog waste bins available in the local area. Regrettably there are a minority of dog owners who would appear to think that it is not necessary to pick up their dog's fouling. These people allow their dogs to foul and do not clean up after them whether they have them on a lead or not. So requiring all dog owners to have their dogs on a lead in specific locations e.g. Grange promenade will not prevent fouling and none cleaning up. If dogs are on leads they can still foul What would the cost of policing this be? E.g. What would the burden of proof be? It is wholly inappropriate to bag up fouling on the open common and fell land. It would be costly to provide and empty a corresponding number of bins. It is not 'police-able' and not green given any mess left in the open would be dissolved, bags will be another bigger problem. Does a blanket cover of all land in South Lakeland apply? Is this necessary. Only of use if you have dog bins. Pavements and public parks. This is OK for town areas but what about open access / common land etc? The countryside will be full of used poo bags unless bins are provided everywhere! What about farm dogs etc.? I live in a village where a large number of dogs live. There is no fouling problem, as everyone makes sure that their dogs 'go' away from the footpaths. It would be crazy to try to apply this law to the countryside, and this proposal suggests that SLDC have no idea how the 'other half' live!! How the order will be enforced and monitored...most fouling seems to take place when there's no-one around to see it happening! Need to cover the area around Ghyllside school from the top of Greengate Lane to the path that runs up the side of school (nursery entrance) and then all the way up the path. Ideally this path should be CCTV monitored. I think you should look at what is in place a ford park and implement it all over the country! Ford Park and Hoad Hill. Poo bags are thrown over the fence onto anyone’s land. Dog owners are being singled out. Why not extend the order to include 'cats'.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 74

Does this include rural areas i.e. outside 30mph/village boundary? I have spent many unpleasant hours collecting bags of pooh thrown/hanging on bushes/in walls in national park. 'Stick and flick' is more appropriate on rural footpaths. Current law requires a dog to be 'under control'. This should generally be adequate. Preferable to the introduction of another layer of authoritative controls. If my dog poops on a river bank or some such other inaccessible place (to me and other humans), then I hope that common sense will prevail and that there would no requirement to pick up such poopage! How will it be enforced? Not all Dogs are pets. Working Dogs are trained to operate off leads. Some Public Places should be allowed where dogs can naturally carry out their functions. Working Dogs should be exempt from any comprehensive regulations. Policing any order is a problem, they do not have the manpower So far as I know, dog fouling is already an offence How to catch the owners! It's amazing how quickly people find plastic bags in their pockets if they know you've seen them. Children at Ambleside School play on Rothay Park. They also play football on the adjacent fields (belonging to the Kelsick Trust and SLDC.) Sometimes even Vicarage Road is used as a dog toilet! People must clean up on the playing fields and pavements of the Village! I am a dog owner and always pick up my dog's faeces. However, there is an extreme lack of waste/dog waste bins in the Kendal area, particularly at places which are the known dog walking areas such as Scroggs Wood. The problem isn't just dog faeces being left but also bags where people have 'picked up', but can't be bothered to carry the bags with them to the next bin. Given that there can be several miles between bins in more rural areas, this is not surprising. I suspect that more bins would serve to reduce the problem dramatically. I don’t understand. People bag it and leave it hanging up on a tree, gate or left on the ground. We live in the countryside. There is horse, cow, sheep, fox, bird excrement all over. Health issues. Urination policy unable to control. Public urination, not possible to control. As a representative for the National Trust we are very much against this order affecting open access land as we have a major issue of people bagging up dog mess and leaving the bags on site in the grass or hanging on fences and trees etc. It would be far better if they just left it to wash away than bag it up to fester and rot leaving us with stinking plastic bags to tidy up. What are the resource implications? Is it expected that the resulting fines will cover the costs of administering the scheme? Will there need to be designated Officers recruited to manage the issue? Too many people in this area, mainly elderly, their dog is their only companion and it is cruelty to animals to confine them to a lead. How will this be enforced? Enforcement is not adequately provided for. Education for all owners is required Lots of people ignore it. Dogs should not be excluded from some areas, e.g. Arnside, Grange, Ambleside Proms and all cemeteries. I am a responsible dog owner and my concern is that I will be unable to walk or exercise my dog in certain areas in Grange. I always keep my dog on a lead until she does her business and then I pick it up and dispose of it. I don't think I should be made to pay for the irresponsibility of others. How can this be policed? We have been waiting for anyone to be fined for this already and dog control officers seem to have been to few and ineffective in catching the perpetrators. The footpaths around my neighbourhood and along the river Kent are fouled by dogs on a regular basis. I don't think there are enough dog poo bins in areas where dogs are exercised, particularly on the Helm above Oxenholme where you are as likely to find a full black poo bag in the hawthorn bushes as a bird!

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 75

Football playing field near Wattsfield Lane allotments. I’m a dog owner, i pick up my dog mess so why should it be that i could get told i cannot let my dog off a lead, or let him run around in the park, again it’s the minority that ruins it for the majority, it’s totally unfair to penalise those who abide by the current dog fouling rules. it’s not on at all. I got a dog so i could walk him end of!!!!! As long as it is kept to dog fouling. It annoys me that the movement that you have obviously spent money on designing a snazzy logo for says "clean streets in south Lakeland" then only goes onto discuss dog mess. what about litter, rubbish around recycling sites, discharge from illegal car wash into surface water drainage, fly tipping, commercial waste from catering facilities. In areas where children play the fouling can cause serious health problems. That the application of the order is reasonable. Pavements, road gutters, footpaths and mown grass is essential. Woodlands, moors, rough grassland etc unless it is an urban dog walking area with particular problems is not required. Who will enforce it on the ground? At the moment, dog faeces have to go in the bins, the same as other food rubbish etc. Do we need red dog bins too? Lack of enforcement. This does not address the problem of unaccompanied dogs let out early morning or after dark. In dense vegetation it can be difficult to spot a dog fouling and perhaps not necessary to remove. It’s not always followed. Cost of enforcement and ability to enforce. Goes without question. Needs to be enforced. Many people bag the poo, but don't dispose of it appropriately. There are many bags of dog poo littering the streets, hedges and public areas in Kendal and Oxenholme. Those responsible for this activity are making matters worse by adding a litter offense to the dog fouling issue. It would be appropriate to specifically tackle this issue The rear Terrace Ulverston is disgusting with dog fouling en masse it is smelly and shrubbery is overtaking the entire alley. Never heard of it. It is playing fields children play on the field don’t want it on their feet or body if they are rolling. Should apply to all, including guide dogs, etc If person cannot clean up after their dog, they should have someone with them who can We need a lot more bins to deposit the bags. I have often walked for an hour carrying our dog bags which is not pleasant and most people won't carry them that long. punishing the many for the failings of the few Orders should be made to legitimise enforcement only when and where there is a serious problem. Enforcement should be proportionate to the problem. Is it enforceable? How would offences be reported to the District Council and how would they respond? See attached document. There are already orders to deal with this problem which are not enforced. Without enforcement a new order will NOT help. How is to be "policed"? Enforcement-it's illegal to leave dog mess now-some people don't care. You need officers to support and enforce the order. Where we live we see some people returning from their walk-some carry small bags, some don't? It must include dog fouling of private land including private gardens I think that you cannot stop a dog fouling but!! you can clean it up after you The fact that dog may foul in area that would be very difficult/dangerous to clean up in if bramble patches or steep muddy slopes. How and by whom is it going to be policed? Provision of bins needed. Deaf people shouldn’t NOT be exempt.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 76

Deaf people should be liable. Not needed. How would it policed effectively? I agree that dog poo should be removed from land and footpaths which are regularly used by the public. But on open land in the middle of nowhere I do not see the need to do this. Surely it is better to leave the poo to disintegrate naturally, than to enforce the Order and risk the far worse nuisance of filled poo bags being left littering the countryside. This also happens on frequently used paths and fields. The answer is to provide more bins and to regularly empty them. This will NOT resolve the problem some people will still not pick up. Looks unsightly and creates smells flies and a general lack or concern about the area. A few irresponsible dog owners who do not pick up after their dog may give rise to draconian restrictions for all owners who could be prevented from freely exercising their dogs. Mostly fouling on footpaths or where children play It's application I support it for 'urban' areas - all for clean streets in towns and villages - but this is totally unworkable for open land like fells and commons. We will simply become littered with plastic bags of pooh everywhere - is this really what we want? What are people supposed to do when they go for a day's walk with their dogs? Will you be placing bins on the fells and paying for them to be emptied? Let's have some balance here! Constantly have to look where I am walking as there is so much dog waste evident in our area! A little bit concerned about fouling in rural areas (outside 30mph)-don't think it's necessary to pick up after dogs in woodland etc. The order only tells people what they cannot do. The result is often people pick up their waist in a bag then drop the bag in a bush. The order needs to be combined with what people need to do. EG in many forest areas Forestry Commission encourage 'flick it off the pack'. In streets we need to encourage 'pick it up, pack it out and place in bin' The message most people get is they have to pick it up but they need to know where to deposit in .Research indicates many people do not realise they can put waste in any bin and if they don't know where bin is they won't pick it up .Hence info 'where are the bins' needs to be provided to encourage appropriate behaviour. Dog owners need to clean up after their dogs in public areas.ie streets, pavements, and obvious public footpaths. i am sick of bringing dog dirt into my house on my shoes all over the carpets. the problem is you cannot tell it is on your shoes in the dark when you go in your house. Fines should be higher Enforcement. Dog fouling on playing field. Too easy for dog owners to not adhere to the law People don’t understand the purpose of it - they pick up and bag it in open country and they hang the bags on fence posts, bushes etc or hide them by gates or even find someone's garden to throw them into. Quite frankly I think in the country this is far worse than leaving it in a field full of cow and sheep droppings. It is really quite disgusting to be faced with an ancient carefully preserved stinking bag of faeces which would have naturally degraded in the field or wood hanging at face level or squashed into a path. If a dog owner doesn't pick up the dog mess it usually doesn't make any different whether they are on a lead or not. We rarely use a lead but always pick up. I agree with the fouling order but don't necessarily agree with the issue about leads and restrictions. Minor problem but not enough bins available i.e. poo in plastic bags dumped around randomly worse than not picked up. Proper enforcement will be needed to ensure that the Order makes a real difference. I believe that byelaws should also be introduced requiring dog owners to keep their dogs on a lead in certain areas, such as playing fields, streets, Grange prom etc. If people's dogs are on the lead it is more difficult for them to ignore their dog fouling. Areas such as playing fields, Grange prom etc is used by young children, and dogs should be on a lead both to reduce the risk of toxicara and to prevent dogs being a nuisance. There are plenty of places in South Lakeland where people can let their dogs off the lead where they don't cause a problem to other people.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 77

That people will pick it up while in view, only to discard plastic bag with contents, in unsuitable places due to lack of sufficient bins. I can't see how you would enforce it. The majority of dog owners are responsible, but those who don't clean up after their dogs are unlikely to do because of this order. They know they simply won't be caught. Who will enforce if and how? How will it be enforced? How can it be enforced without full-time daylight plain-clothes policing, and possibly up to midnight! It does not go far enough. Sandylands playing field is for children to play in not a dogs toilet. I am a Voluntary Ranger with the LDNPA and carry out patrols in the SLDC area. During the patrols we collect litter and find that 'dog bags' are deposited on trees and hedges, in walls, hung on gates or dropped on the ground. This happens mainly in the areas within about half a mile of a car park in rural areas. Relates to a minority of individuals who don’t care. No armour of legislation will stop irresponsible dog owners allowing their dog to offend. More fouling due to dark nights-Not being able to locate poo. Also when dogs poorly unable to bag up. Who is going to enforce this enough to make an impact??? I don't think it should apply to rural areas where rain etc quickly clears any mess away. Smacks of big brother. There is too much regulation already and most people do pick up after their dog has done its business. I believe this should not apply to "all areas of land" but to towns/villages, and footpaths/ bridleways etc in the countryside. Not enough bins are provided as it is in built up areas, never mind out of town. No one will enforce it; have not heard of one single person in our area getting a fine for allowing their dog to foul a highway or other public place. Will it actually make any difference? Who will be around to stop fouling? could easily be a good idea in theory but not bring about any change Some rural areas are full animal (wild, cattle etc) faeces-it seems unnecessary to clear up faeces in middle of fells. etc. 1).Cats are also a nuisance. 2). Irresponsible owners will not be checked anyway. It is an overreaction to a minor problem. Given the wide open spaces where people exercise their dogs in South Lakeland, many of which are littered with sheep and cow droppings, and also the littering by humans, the application of non-fouling legislation to such areas is a nonsense. Surely the Dog Control officer should merely be given a remit to apply common sense in areas which would not normally be regarded as grazing areas. If not, then farmers should remove their animals' faeces at the point and time of discharge. With regard to public areas where there is not any agricultural use, then maybe some legislation would be acceptable. What you should take into account is the fact that most dog owners, like me, will remove dog turds in non- grazing areas. No amount of legislation will stop the minority of irresponsible dog owners from leaving dog mess around, and, in the current financial climate, we should be putting money to more socially effective uses, as there is no way you can stop this with the appointment of a few lowly paid staff. The greatest problem I see from some dog owners is picking up dog mess in a plastic bag and then leaving the bag at the "scene of the crime" this is doubly criminal as the product is a plastic bag which, unlike a dog turd, is not bio degradable over the course of a few days. I have yet to hear of an irresponsible dog owner being fined. How are owners supposed to clean up when a dog urinates? 1. A dog that fouls open access land (not use for crops), similar to a walker on a mountain in my view is not a problem and should not be penalised. The storage of the poo in a plastic bag will cause more damage to the environment than letting the poo decompose naturally, well away from any footpath. It is considered acceptable to poo on a mountain by a human away from streams and footpaths so it is

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 78 not fair in this certain landscape to punish dog owners. 2. Why is a deaf person exempt?!! They are capable of picking up the waste. Other than this I fully support this order. To my knowledge it does not cover the adequate and safe disposal of 'Poo Bags' nor does it place enough responsibility on the owner to clear up and remove dog waste no matter what the provision of bins is. I am disgusted at the number of people I meet who seem to think that not having a bin within 200 yards gives them an excuse to dispose of bags in trees or hedges etc The existing powers should be enforced before seeking new powers. I wholeheartedly agree that dog faeces should be removed by the person in charge of the dog whenever possible. However, there can be occasions when a dog may access an area that a person cannot. If the dog fouls in that area, the person in charge would be liable but would be unable to remove the fouling. Without proper enforcement of a dog control patrol officer in each area, or local dog walkers volunteering to fulfil this role, it is unlikely that offenders will be caught and fined. Yes, I'm all in agreement for cleaning up after my own dog, keeping him on a lead where specified, not walking in excluded areas for dogs. That's just common sense. However my concern would be it is nearly impossible to prevent a male dog from urinating/marking, easy enough to clean up any defecation but not urine. That's just taking it a bit too far IMHO! Unless of course you mean humans! In many areas there are no bins provided to dispose of dog mess which discourages scooping. I agree with the orders in locations where children play, but would resist it in open countryside purely on the grounds that mess will rot away relatively quickly in nature, whilst if it is in bags biodegradation will take place considerably slower, potentially over thousands of years. If it is not on a path then surely it is better to let nature take its course. There was mention of dog urination - I can see no way to prevent this as it is part of a dogs make up to mark and leave markings and would not like to see such a ruling brought in. How does it apply to private property? A dog in this area is allowed out at night and fouls my garden and drive with urine stains on the lawn and faeces on my driveway - most recent incidents were 21st August and 27th August. Extremely difficult to enforce Not being able to let dog off lead to exercise. Majority penalised due to minority. Concerns about majority of good owners being penalised due to an irresponsible few e.g. having to keep dogs on leads on open public spaces. Do not understand c) Excluding dogs from specified land; and what sort of offence is this? Does it mean your survey is badly written? It should be an offense to leave the plastic bag and dog poo by the side of the road/paths. Must be done sensibly and not give blanket bans everywhere. I am concerned as a dog owner that anyone who does not like dogs could accuse me of not picking up after my dog purely because they do not like dogs. How does SLDC propose to deal with situations where the owner of the dog denies that it is their dogs faeces that have been deposited? I have had an irate person challenge me in barrow park over this issue and can categorically say that it was not my dog that had deposited the mess. I felt threatened by his person who walked away exclaiming through gritted teeth that he f****** can't stand dogs. Incidentally I picked up the mess that belonged to someone else's dog because it was unsightly and left on the path and I also felt threatened by this worse than a dog drug infused human. This is very important as I have known a personal case of someone going blind and we have a major problem in Windermere (BRING BACK DOG LICENCES). Also problem with control of dogs - on leads, having been bitten. Too draconian. Why is it only being implemented in certain areas and not throughout South Lakeland? The scheme is called Clean Streets but you are only dealing with dog faeces. What about litter, chewing gum, car and van parking on the pavements, bikes and skateboards that are a danger to the public in town centres etc? Maybe the prevention of use of the exclusion areas could push the problem out onto surrounding

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 79 streets so making them worse. How is this going to be enforced? I think there is a big difference between a dog urinating in the street and leaving faeces. I am only in support of penalties where dog’s faeces are left on streets and roads. Very difficult to stop a dog urinating and then clean it up. Urination should be excluded. Defecation is the problem. Disposal of waste. Dogs are very important to many people. They need places to walk their dogs and whilst I totally agree with clearing up after your dog in e.g. parks, streets etc there are many places in our area where it should not be necessary to clear up e.g. woodland, fields. Particularly where I live, there is a problem during the summer months when there are tourists around. This needs to be taken into consideration. The order that is laid out is far too inflexible. l quite agree that dog faeces should be cleaned up where the general public walk, i.e. streets and footpaths, but it would be ridiculous to demand this in rural situations. The use of plastic bags is a greater hazard than bio-degradable matter in rough areas. It is well recognised that plastic is an ever growing environmental nightmare. It is also hard to imagine how law enforcement would work in rural situations. Where do you draw the line? Sheepdogs, police dogs, hunting and trailing hounds, there cannot be two separate laws for different types of dogs. Also to suggest that urination should be considered punishable is totally ridiculous. How on earth would a town dweller without a garden be able to ask his/her dog to wait for 10 or maybe 20 minutes after a night in?? Why not just ban man’s best friend altogether? Fully agree that owners should remove dog waste from pavements and paths but concern that this will apply to rural areas without bins and lead to proliferation of plastic poo bags hanging on trees etc. These don't decompose naturally. I was under the impression that there was already existing legislation to cover dog fouling etc (with fines). Dogs need to be able to run free at times so this should not apply to ALL land owned by SLDC There are powers already for authorities to take action and they do not the traffic wardens can take this in hand but need to be out early morning and evening on the back lanes and open areas Dogs should not be allowed on children's play areas. This should be limited to inhabited areas. There is a risk that this measure would cause an increase in the improper disposal of plastic bags of dog waste in the countryside. I fully agree with a and b but strongly disagree with implications of c and d. Must ensure that the order applies on public paths even in rural areas. Dogs being excluded from areas. Other animals including cats and horses are free to foul in public places. Most dog owners are responsible are remove offending fouls Dog faeces should be picked up and fines should be massive. Dogs should be kept on leads in certain areas but banning them totally is draconian. I am a dog owner and always pick up. Why should my pleasure of walking form dog where I want be curtailed by the ignorant minority who don’t pick up Insufficient BINS. Use of plastic bags where another method appropriate. That the ban doesn’t go too far and allows no pleasure in a walk for dog and owner. There need to be more officers around to catch irresponsible people. After contacting the council twice, more 'fining' stickers went up on lampposts but the problem got worse...we have had 4 occasions of people allowing their dog to foul 2-3 metres inside our driveway. It is all very well putting orders in place but it needs to be acted on in all areas, particularly residential areas where people are more likely to get away with not cleaning up dog mess. sldc ability/desire to enforce payment of fines. See attached letter. Dogs belonging to responsible owner will be denied access to wonderful exercise areas. Irresponsible owners will still not 'clean up' or use leads unless areas are effectively 'policed'. That it will not be strictly enforced. Dogs seen running loose with owner present in graveyard. We find this particularly distressing. Also parents collecting children from primary school moving into school curtilage accompanied by dog. SLDC has a pathetic record of prosecuting irresponsible dog owners with existing legislation. I have no confidence that this Council will either allocate sufficient resources or properly enforce the DCO's for

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 80 fear of losing votes. The health and safety of children will be continued to be put at risk by thousands of dog owners who want to indulge themselves and don't give a damn! It is absolutely disgusting and this Council is incompetent! That it should be implemented strictly with strong penalties. Children catching infections and tramping in an spreading the excrement to your own house /cafe etc. How does keeping a dog on a lead prevent dog fouling? Dog fouling is caused by irresponsible dog owners. Why do you think they would clear up their dog's mess if their dog was on a lead? Irresponsible dog owners fail to clear up mess when they think they can get away with it. As a responsible dog owner I have approached an irresponsible dog owner who refused to clear up his dog's mess even when I confronted him. Unfortunately, it is a select few on a regular basis. Putting a dog on a lead will not resolve this. Concerned that there will not be enough manpower to enforce the new regulations. School grounds are not mentioned as areas covered - will they be? Currently dogs use Vicarage Park school grounds and are not on a lead. That it may be difficult to enforce/due to the cuts not enough manpower available. Happy to support the anti-dog fouling measures. However the fining of a person for not having their dog on a lead is too extreme. People should be made aware that if they don't remove the faeces, they will most certainly be heavily fined. No half measures. Please can you ensure that it is not acceptable for owners to pick up dog faeces in a bag, and then throw the bag onto the ground, or into local gardens, bushes etc. They should take it home or put it in a suitable bin. If a dog is off its lead in a wooded area, how would the owner be expected to find the faeces? If it is to be made compulsory to remove faeces then all areas should have a bin for the owner to dispose of the faeces. How will SLDC police orders? Could lead to malicious reporting by non-dog owners. Occasionally one may run out of poop bags, judgements need to be fair. Policing the system There are issues with policing dog fouling 24/7. Dog walkers do need areas where they can walk their dogs and there is a risk that over control of areas will restrict access for those who are not able to take their dogs in cars to get them away from streets. Forcing people to search for country walks will increase the risk of accidents re sheep in fields. There needs to be a common sense balance. Lack of bins provided for disposal of dog foul means that I've seen many things bagged but not binned e.g. hung on trees etc. It's good to prevent fouling but people must be helped to take the right action. NOT ENOUGH BINS ABOUT Already an offence which isn't enforced. Don't see how new offence is going to change this. POLICING OF THE ORDER LACK OF ENFORCEMENT I do not want to restrict responsible dog owners. This should be enforced. Those dog owners who do not pick up after their dog(s), will always refuse to do so. Also, for the police, this could be a distraction from other priorities. Where I live there are horses on the pavement. I rest my case. Does, this virtually dogs need exercise and to run free, is it intended to include woodlands in the control orders? If yes this virtually excludes dogs being free anywhere. Will there be enough officials to patrol all problem areas and apply fines etc. Primarily my concern is about that left on pavements and those to put the poo in plastic bags and leave it! You are going to make yourselves very unpopular bringing in laws that WILL NOT make any difference. All you will do is make life difficult for responsible dog owners. It is a small minority of dog owners that don't pick up after their dogs. Why should all the rest suffer. The Council appears to believe that they can do better than the general public by using 'orders'. This I believe is a total illusion.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 81

Area problems are too widespread. Enforcement, no point in having these orders if no one enforces them. Costs of implementation of control. How can it be administered in rural areas without enormous costs for wardens? It does nothing to stop defecation by dogs in places where this it is offensive. Implementation. Existing sanctions are not enforced! You only have to go and see Windermere cricket grass when they cut it before a match. Pavement on Upper Oak Street leading up to Queens Park recreation grounds. Enforcement difficulties I agree with the order in principle. But If I understand the order correctly you are proposing the order for ALL areas open to the air? If I am walking on top of a fell and my dog defecates in the bracken, and it is not on the path I do not see it necessary to pick it up. I completely agree with the order for pavements and public parks, but not for open fell land or rough road side verges. Eventually there will be nowhere to exercise the dog (s) Dog muck can be removed from a small area; exercising dogs needs a vast area dogs don’t do their business all over the place unless sick. They usually have one small area which they 'perform' Responsible owners would be penalised by not allowing dogs to exercise off lead. taking away our free will and liberty If not caught "in the act" of leaving faeces: how will it be enforced? TOURISTS are also major culprits. How enforce in rural/remote areas? Fouling by strays or which have escaped where they live i.e. no owner present. Faeces bagged but bags not removed (e.g. along the Canal path). NEED TO BE ENFORCED WITH A BIGGER MAXIMUM FINE. THERE IS A CURRENT PRACTICE OF PUTTING DOG FAECES IN A BAG WHICH IS DISCARDED. THIS IS STILL FOULING, NOT LITTER. the orders will be difficult to enforce due to the small amount of resources allocated , for example i am unaware of any one being prosecuted for dog fouling within our district Difficult to implement, cost to SLDC of enforcement officers. I would not want to see blanket exclusion of dogs from certain areas or a blanket requirement for dogs to be kept on lead. I do not think this should apply in open countryside away from towns and villages. There would have to be many more bins and how could you have a bin on the top of a fell? There would be much more dog faeces ending up in landfill sites, but when it is out in the countryside it will disappear naturally. Some Dog Owners (the majority rather than the minority) fail to pick up their dogs' mess. Several who do pick it up then choose to merely throw it to the ground or into adjacent hedges etc The problem is that people put the faeces into bags by owners who then 'hide' them in hedges/walls etc. We have managed for years with no problem It should also cover dog muck put in plastic bags which are then thrown away-unsightly and dangerous. It is a blunt instrument which discriminates against responsible dog owners. If the Order was to include dog urination, this would be against common sense. As a dog owner I can assure you that when my dog needs to urinate he gives little notice and it does not matter whether or not he is on a lead. Whereas I can (and do) pick up his faeces (although he generally "goes" at home) urine is rather more difficult. Furthermore rain - which is not infrequent locally- means urine is naturally dissipated. I would have thought time would have been better spent putting up more dog poo bins, and supplying poop bags. Personally I find cigarette ends more of a problem than dog urine. And how about horse, sheep and cat poo? I'm not clear if the new powers would only relate to streets. The problem is not confined to streets. Kendal parks are significantly affected, in particular Gooseholme, which would be a lovely place to sit by the river it wasn't so contaminated with dog mess. If it means owners were forced to keep dogs on leads as this does not solve the problem and leads to aggressive dogs. Fines are in place now and there are dozens of signs along the canal path, but I have never seen

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 82 anyone patrolling or being fined so not sure how the order will change things. What classed as public places? Lanes and fells would not be practical to remove altogether. Best removed from where people may walk/sit and not into brambles or over wall out the way. Enforcement More bins required for disposal of waste How will it be enforced? I don’t think fair to punish dog fouling on grass fell paths through open fields, just on tarmac. Difficulty of enforcement No apparent action being taken against offenders. I am concerned that rules to keep dogs on the lead over open land will mean that dogs cannot be exercised properly. One of the responsibilities of owning a dog is that they are exercised properly. It could cause normally placid dogs to become frustrated and overly full of energy. Children’s play areas and cemeteries are, clearly, areas that dogs shouldn't be in but open land such as National Trust land, LDNPA and private land (where permission is given) should remain open to dogs off the lead. It feels very much like responsible dog owner and their dogs are being punished for the behaviour of the few. It seems like banning all people from a shop because some people steal from it. The fouling walked into your home. Not nice to go walking to find its all over your shoes. Penalty too large. do it by education more political interference we are already a police state Seems very restrictive most dog owners are responsible. In rural areas i.e., footpaths people pick up dog litter then leave or throw full bag in hedge! Sherriff Walk footpath v.bad. Recreation ground Staveley. Does fouling have to be witnessed? If so by whom? What about false accusations or denials. A bit different if someone in a wheelchair is walking their dog. LACK OF ENFORCABILITY As a dog owner myself it does worry me that people will start being anti-social towards dog owners. We always clear up after our dogs, but I wouldn't want to be in the situation where abuse is given by someone else because they THINK my dog has fouled (this has happened before. A lady's child had stepped in dog mess and because she was so annoyed spat an angry tirade at us about the irresponsibility of dog owners, even though it was nothing to do with us (. Ok in principle to collect your dog's faeces but there are very few places to dispose of the poo once picked up. I am quite happy to pick up after my dog but there is a distinct lack of bins in the Kendal area. Dogs should be banned from parks/recreation grounds No bins available to dispose of faeces! In my locale dog(s) are let out to roam they foul in a number of places, no one ever sees the animal, this makes dealing with the persons responsible virtually impossible. There needs to be enough bins to dispose of poo bags as there is nothing worse than seeing poo bags hanging on fences or thrown on the floor - these will take forever to decompose whereas poo left will! it will only be effective if properly policed and prosecutions brought about - warnings are an utter waste All dog owners should pick up their dog's poo. However, there are many elderly people who find it difficult to even see the poo, or retrieve the poo, or they just forget to collect it or to deposit in the bin. Dogs are just allowed out of the home to do as they please. I have four dogs and always do my best to clear up behind them. It is a problem to me as some of my dogs will eat other dog’s poo, plus the possibility of walking in it and the unsightliness of it. It lowers the look of the village. People with dogs on leads just walk away too at times, there is not enough checking on this and certain areas are worse than others. It is unsafe for young children too. I feel the people who do not clear up are giving all dog walkers a bad name and my fear is all our dogs will suffer for it not just the guilty ones. I have no problem asking people to pick up on pavements and public footpaths, but it is not necessary everywhere. such as fields, of path in woods etc. It doesn't cover urination on for example, picnic benches, car wheels, play equipment, or any other

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 83 public property where dogs naturally wish to establish their territory Cleaning up is a relative term: what about the dog with very loose faeces, perhaps the one that defecated with the full consent of the owner, between the goal posts in my local playing field last week, or the one that I recently watched produce copious diarrhoea fully in the entrance doorway of a major department store, admittedly just outside SLDC. New proposed Regulation C - excluding dogs from specified land areas New proposed regulations at 'c' excluding dogs from specified land areas The definition of area covered is FAR too broad. It will need to deal with those situations where the faeces are 'bogged' but the bog is not removed. It appears to cover private land not just public land. I don’t agree with the removal on fells/country lanes if done away from path/main walkway. Do not want to see more plastic bags hanging from trees etc. It is highly probable no resources will be available to enforce any order passed for any location anywhere in the SLDC area. In these circumstances passing any orders will be simply "window dressing" and a total waste of resources. Any law, order or regulation that is not enforced brings government at any level in to disrepute. I don't think legislation is necessary. Most dog owners are responsible and it would be penalising the many for the actions of the few. It won't make any difference. It doesn't seem to address the increasing problem of owners bagging the mess but leaving the bag or throwing it into bushes. Grass verges and roadway with no footpath or 88-90 lighting on which neighbourhood garages between Greenside. This will penalise GOOD DOG OWNERS! That it will not be enforced and dog owners will continue to leave faeces uncollected. I don’t want people to use it as a reason not to exercise their dogs properly! They need to go controlled exercise. People walk dogs on Serpentine Road just to foul! Dogs are let loose to run around farm or cattle grassland, regardless that it is due for mowing and sheep grazing. They should not be applied to moorland or open countryside unless there is a particular health/safety hazard to people and/livestock. Receptacles for dog faeces in poly bags should be provided by SLDC in built up areas where there are a problem, and emptied in a similar ways to other rubbish/litter bins. Unlikely to be properly enforced due to financial constraints statutory framework already exists anyway. Many more bins required for use of dog-pooh bags. At present far too few bins available. Grange Promenades It's an excessive measure for most open air areas of South Lakeland. I am strongly in agreement with this kind of order for places where people are likely to walk, on footways, footpaths, playing fields etc, but to try and control elsewhere is inappropriate and unlikely to be effective. In the very open areas of South Lakeland, the chances of anyone stepping in a foul is negligible and it will naturally biodegrade. In open areas where there is no livestock and a dog can be safely allowed off the lead, it is not always possible to identify where a dog has fouled, partly because it is well off the footpath where people walk! The potential problem with encouraging bagging is that people will drop non-biodegradable bags which will be more offensive and environmentally hazardous than the foul they contain. Livestock get in contact with it. Risk of children being contaminated by dog dirt. I suppose that digging dirt into soil may be acceptable. Monitoring dog owners who continuously let their animals mess in public areas. Sufficient bins must be provided without spoiling the beauty of the area and bins must be emptied enough to prevent overspill. on open hillsides faeces may be best flicked from the path and left to decompose (which it ill do much quicker than in landfill). It should also include measures to stop people picking up dog dirt, putting it into a plastic bag AND THEN PLACING THE BAG IN A HEDGEROW rather than taking it home and disposing of it properly.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 84

It would be better to let the dirt degrade naturally than leave it in a plastic bag. In our area children play area, small football area, messy, This order already exists and the people who do not comply will still not comply if another order is made. We need to have more dog bins. You can walk for a considerable length of time before coming across a bin Need to provide more bins and bags. It’s the small minority that need to pick it up, that don't now. Walkers on the fells would have to carry dog faeces all day in their rucksacks-unhealthy. Years ago one could walk and look at the country side, not now you look at the ground. But what about places like the helm-dog fouling is bad there-how could it be policed? On open front lawns. Danger to children playing. Effect monitoring of the offending owners. Control should be reasonable in open areas away from public footpaths, not zero tolerance. Whether this order will be enforced. Fouling by defecation - yes. Owners should clean up. Fouling by urination - no. Dogs must urinate occasionally. It is not practical to clean this up once done. To make this an offence is tantamount to banning dogs from all public places in South Lakeland. They have no toilets. If humans had no toilets you would have to ban all humans from public places! This part of the Order would be absurd. Stick with what is sensible. Bad laws breed contempt - like cycling on pavements. The council does not have the resources to police this order. I do not support it if it requires any funding for staffing. How is it going to be implemented? When did I last see an "authorised officer"? Make the fixed penalty high enough to deter people!! The wording 'open to the air and where public have access, with or without pavement' troubles me. I have no problem with the order being applied to public paved areas or playing fields. But in my opinion it would be taking things way too far to put this restriction on more rural open land, i.e. fields, open fell land and the likes. The larger part of these kinds of areas have already been 'fouled' by other animals, be them various farm animals or wild life. In my opinion the occasional fouling caused by a dog while enjoying the freedom of the countryside is negligible in this instance! In urban areas, everyone should clean up after their dogs. In woods, fields, off paths, the faeces break down naturally and leaving them does less environmental damage then encasing them in plastic. How is it enforced? an order on its own has no effect Might be too Draconian The small proportion or dog owners who behave irresponsibly and flout existing regulations and exonerations are unlikely to change their behaviour unless enforcement is seen to take place. Football field in Broughton, The Railway track this ground for recreation. How will they be enforced? Current legislation is not. Who will do this? How will it be enforced It won't work (offenders still offend) On my land Enforcement The problem is with the owners Lack of explanation on this questionnaire about how why and where it will be enforced and how it is different to current laws It is hard to police in the sense of catching people in the act with their dogs fouling Any change to legislation of this sort should be considered carefully to ensure as much as is possible that a) it will actually work b) it won't cost more to implement than it will gain in fines and other charges c) it doesn't place yet another burden on our already underfunded police beat officers The vast majority of dog owners pick up the faeces. I walk in Abbot Hall Park at least four times a day with my dog on and off the grass. I know there is a small amount of faeces around but I can't remember the last time I got any on my shoes. I think the problem is being blown out of all proportion

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 85 and the vast majority will be punished because of the few i.e. making people keep their dog on a lead when it’s not necessary Responsible dog owners clear up the minority do not and will not! How this will be enforced i.e. are there sufficient officers to do this Surely this offence is already punishable. Passing a new regulation will have no effect unless there are an adequate number of authorized officers to enforce it. "The Fouling of Land by Dogs Order requires people in control of a dog to immediately remove faeces deposited by the dog" Not just remove faeces immediately but also to deposit them in a bin, as opposed to leaving the bag of faeces lying around, in the hedge, tied to a branch, etc It will only work if it is policed. In open fields it seems appropriate to ensure dog faeces are away from paths not necessarily filled up. If you include open fell land are you going to police it and will you also include sheep/cow poo Failure to enforce especially at unsocial hours. The cost of enforcing the rules. that it should apply equally to urban and rural areas The enforcement procedures to make it a meaningful Order and the likely cost to rate payers of the enforcement Broadgate Park. Main road through village. This will penalise the responsible dog owner who on a whole clean up after their dogs. No concerns unless it includes other issues I don’t like it. How can is possibly be policed?? In areas where children normally have access for general play Lack of supervision of the implementation of the orders due to lack of money or lack of staff. Over the top legislation for what is a minor problem. There will be more bags of dog poo all over the place. Responsible people will always do the right thing it is a minority that don’t. The definition of area covered is far too broad. it will apply in inappropriate areas such as fell land, e.g. scout scar and other areas which is wrong It is fine putting these orders in place, but will there be enough 'officers' to enforce them? If not, nothing will change. probable lack of putting into effect How will it be enforced Needs to be policed with common sense, thoughtful enforcement Off lead areas often inaccessible for humans. Provision of adequate disposal of 'pooh bags' not thrown down paths/laybys etc. HEALTH HAZARD The issue of dog fouling is down to antisocial owners regardless of where they are. A blanket response preventing the exercising of dogs in certain areas penalises a great many responsible owners and will not prevent fouling by those dogs whose owners will always fail to accept responsibility for their animals. Need to encourage dog owners to take responsibility without it being enforced. Some people take exceptions to laws What is this "Fouling of Land by Dogs Oder" means? Don't you have any plain English words to ask this question? Have you done cognitive testing of your questionnaire before put these questions up for consultation? Removing dog faeces should be mandatory for public highways, bridleways, children's play areas and public parks/open-air sports facilities only. It is unnecessary to apply it to designated countryside footpaths or open land since there are no public health issues regarding dogs' faeces. Footwear worn by walkers is robust, cleaned easily and nobody should have oro-faecal contact under these circumstances: the risks of children becoming infected with Toxocara canis under these conditions are infinitesimal. Would like certain restricted areas to be extended.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 86

This order would be unenforceable without CCTV in parks etc. I would be quite happy to ban all dogs from everywhere! Irresponsible owners are the problem Currently do g owners do not think they are able to be prosecuted if out of speed limit boundaries, is this still the case? How will this be policed as very few resources? I fear that the police may be reluctant to enforce such an order in view of the pending cut in their budget. The cost of implementation. Passing an order is one thing, putting it into practice is more difficult. Difficult to define "appropriate" as in (d) That the order will not be effectively enforced. You can't prevent dogs from weeing. You pull them into a good spot, but you can clear up when your dog fouls. Whilst I do support it I hope that it would be managed with some common sense. For example it is not always possible to see everything that your dog is doing, particularly if the dog is off the lead in woods or open land. The focus should be on places used by members of the public, e.g. public footpaths, pavements, parks, rights of way etc. The sad thing is that there has been a decline in the responsibility of dog owners over the years in this regard and the problem has definitely worsened - measures that both shame people into doing something about this issue are to be welcomed. It will be extremely difficult to "police" an order of this nature. I hope it can be enforced against neighbours who just don't care - just came in from cleaning crap from the street for the third time this week and was delighted to have the chance to comment online. Was going to email you anyway for some dog fouling signs as I don't feel I can tackle the neighbour concerned but all the neighbours are sick and tired of it. But will you have staff to do this enforcement and how would it work on the ground. Enforcement Expense and appropriateness of enforcing. "Remove faeces" should include disposing of bags in an acceptable way - not stuffing into a hedge or throwing into a garden. Difficult to enforce. Difficult to enforce. Enforcement and stiffer fines being imposed. ENFORCEMENT. 1 more law-sledge hammer to crack a nut Area of overspill car-park behind Kendal Leisure Centre is un-fenced and un-controlled so dogs are EASILY and readily able to access the area, which is within a well-used, un-problematic dog walking area. The overspill car park is rarely used and un-maintained and access by dogs poses no problem so the order is un-necessary and un-workable How can any orders be enforced when the culprits are not witnessed and so not reported? How will it be fairly policed While I strongly support cleaning up after a dog in urban areas, on paths, play areas, pitches, picnic sites etc, I do feel that in more rural areas this will be difficult to enforce and the policy of 'flicking it off the path' which I think the Forestry Commission suggest, may be quite sufficient. Also as private land is not included, too strict rules in rural areas may result in farm land being misused, as is already the case in our area. Dogs should not be allowed in any Children’s' Playground and most certainly not in the Lindale Village Playground and Skateboard park. Examples of good practice may be seen in Caravan parks, pub playgrounds and Milnthorpe. It is not going to catch anywhere near the amount of people who don't scoop the poop! For example I often see people (more often than not little 'sweet' old ladies) who let their dog poo then walk off and other than me there is no witness; i am not going to be a vigilante dog poo enforcer - especially if the person is a lot bigger than me - and as I know them only by sight and no idea where they live or what their name is, how can I report them? Need more bins for dog owners to put dog faeces in, in public places. Owners bag faeces and throw bags into hedges/gardens thinking they have done their bit usually

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 87 visitors. Not in favour of bagging up on the fells. Enforcing the law. No provided they only cover the playgrounds shown on your maps. Pity the aim can’t be achieved by education. Wonder if by-laws will work in practice e.g. enforcement good enough? Monitoring and catching offenders particularly where I live. No police or officers to carry out the law. Dogs should not foul anywhere and be left. It will target and penalise the wrong people in the wrong areas. Nothing gets done about youths messing open air areas yet dog owner will be? Should parents be fined for their kids making a mess? Pissing in the bushes? People will just let their dogs foul somewhere else. The practicalities of enforcing it. Yes it won't be enforced the By the council Existing laws do not appear to be enforced. When was anybody last fined for allowing their dog to foul in Grange-over-Sands? There is no point in making a fuss about this disgraceful situation unless heavy fines are going to be applied. What is the situation regarding those obnoxious individuals who pick up dogs faeces in a plastic bag and then hang or put said bag in someone's hedge, tree, fence, wall etc. ( This has not happened to be but I've seen other people having to contend with this - absolutely gross !! It penalizes the owners of properly trained dogs by treating everyone in the same way . To try to apply this rule to all open land is absolutely ludicrous; I suppose the politically correct little tyrants on the council will want sheep banned from the Fells as they are in the open on land to much of which the public have access. Responsible dog owners are not the problem. More poop bins might help. I live in a rural area with no bin so only responsible owners pick up their poop and take it home. Will it be enforced? The legislation needs to include picking up the dirt but then leaving it in the bag. This simply adds a plastic bag to the problem! Valid in urban areas, completely ridiculous on say the foreshore or fells. Only that it may not be supported and backed up once it is in place. Dog owners taking animals onto farmers' fields nearby, and onto playing fields in Burneside I think the order is way too broad. Fouling should be removed from urban areas and all pavements / cycle paths etc. but to cover all land open to the air to which the public have access in the South Lakes in particular seems too extreme. If everybody cleared up after dogs there would be no problem. Education is key. Deafness doesn’t prevent a person seeing if their dog cleansed himself. Nor does it prevent them from picking up. Can you afford to pay someone to enforce it? Are there sufficient resources to ensure enforcement? Who will patrol streets to enforce all this? The implementation of any regulations introduced, in other words who will implement the rules. This scatological focus by a responsible council says as much about the members and their priorities as it does about the OWNERS OF DOGS etc. As a resident of South Lakes I am frequently horrified by the blatant anti-social behaviour, mainly by human tourists and let us admit, cyclists, who stop by the roadside or in SLDC car parks and relieve themselves, individually or in groups! THIS IS A SICKENING SIGHT but would be a more appropriate target for the council's focus than on dogs.. Humans are the problem... more so than dogs, What about cats who wander in gardens? What about foxes? What about horses?? There is plenty of horse shit on the roads - does it really matter! The financial recession is much more important. Please look at priorities and stop being so very blinkered..... Grange Over Sands playing field is a disgrace. It is a constant procession of dogs being walked all day and every day. This is a major problem especially for children and the football field.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 88

Lack of enforcement of existing dog fouling byelaws leads to the call for DCOs. HOWEVER officers enforcing new DCO fouling of land legislation must be sufficiently trained, competent and can recognise the difference between a dog (especially a bitch) bobbing down to urinate - which is not required to be cleared away - and fouling - which is. In other areas penalties have been wrongly issued as officers have assumed a dog is fouling when it is not. I am not convinced your authorised officers will be sufficiently competent as this problem is in evidence elsewhere in the country. The dog warden cannot be everywhere, so it will still go on, even when on leads! I am concerned that 'specified land' is too wide a term. I have heard that dogs will be banned from Grange Promenade or at least forced to be on a lead. This would be a step too far. Dog walks on the Promenade are a long established and broadly harmless activity enjoyed by many. The incidence of fouling has REDUCED greatly over recent years as people take more responsibility and as others feel more entitled to point out to the TINY PERCENTAGE of owners that they need to clear up. Where livestock are grazing, yes. Otherwise, No. Dog owners allow their dogs to foul on the front road and back alley of our house sometimes right in front of my gate. One of the big problems is people who pick up dog faeces in a black bag but then throw the bag away in hedge/undergrowth etc. How would the Order improve this? On open access land -e.g. the Helm - it is very difficult to collect faeces from rough areas and as long as faeces are removed from footpaths that should probably be enough. it will never be monitored I think it will make much difference, in order for it to be use the owner needs to be witnessed in the act, there won't be the resources to police the problem, you'll still get the same number of complaints - the proposal is toothless, especially when the council is supposed to be cash strapped Difficult and costly to implement. It will be un-forcible you cannot police 24-7. Yes people putting the poo in a bag then chucking it into the hedge. Our neighbour lets his dog out to foul on footpath-been reported and nothing gets done! Nothing worse if stood in and transferred to carpets or for children playing. Just hope it is implemented and name and shame! I would not want the application of this to be a priority for the allocation of funds. Enforcement-There are not enough officers on the street to catch owners who let dogs foul. Becomes unnecessary legislative and controls and laws misused. I'm concerned that I will be unable to exercise my dog off the lead. At present I do so in Abbot Hall park & along the river path. I know when he needs to defecate & I always collect & dispose of the waste. I'm also very aware that many dog owners don't do either. does not really address the problem of dog fouling as irresponsible people know they are unlikely to be seen/may not even be accompanying their dog Not enough bins, could have disused land/special areas for dog toileting and bins. The fine is excessive, should have warnings. How will it be enforced? A lot of dog owners who do this - the irresponsible ones - are also aggressive. If it would require giving evidence in court as a witness to it then I certainly wouldn't be prepared to do it. Laws already exist to remove faeces within built up areas. These are ignored by irresponsible dog owners and law/fines not enforced by those with powers to do so (SLDC) Faeces deposited on land, in woods etc. soon decay naturally. The requirement to pick up faeces without a corresponding availability of waste bins (needing regular emptying) will result in plastic bags of dog waste being deposited on verges, in hedgerows, on tree branches and will take many months to decay. Let nature do its job without interference. All responsible dog owners currently pick up dog waste deposited on paved paths/roads in built up areas. Why is the focus just on dogs when other animals, particularly cats, are free to deposit their waste at will? There’s no requirement for farmers to remove cattle slurry from public access areas (footpaths etc.) yet this is equally unpleasant to circumnavigate! Dogs will foul wherever they feel the need it`s down to the owners to clean up after the dog, don`t take a sledge hammer to crack a nut banning dogs from open arrears unless on a leash dogs need space

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 89 to run around and get exercise. b) Not putting and keeping a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised Officer c) Excluding dogs from specified land; and d) Not keeping a dog on a lead where appropriate. The above points are way to vague especially point d). I am a dog owner and pick up any foul left by my dog, I want to enjoy the same freedoms as every other tax payer when I go out exercising my dog be it along the beach or local parks/commons/woods. The University of owns many areas of land that it makes accessible to the public and consequently dogs. The failure of certain owners to properly manage and attend to their pets makes many of these areas unsuitable for other recreational purposes. As a dog owner I object to the statement "all areas of land in South Lakeland open to the air" as this could mean up in the hills where my dog runs free, and I do not want to walk my dog on a lead everywhere. I agree that this is a problem in towns and parks and such but 'everywhere'? Suspect a few people will take their dogs to areas that are less likely to be seen so creating problems in other areas that might not have one at the moment. overt bureaucracy and policing of such areas which makes a new ruling ineffective Provide dog bins

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 90

Question 6: Do you think there are any further ways to deal with dog fouling? 744 comments

Spend less on enforcement and more on provision of bins for disposal-particularly popular rural walks. Education from an early age about responsible dog ownership. Consistency in the warning notices around the area (some advice that there is a fixed penalty but don't say what it is and others have a fine listed but the sum varies between warning notices). High visibility of dog wardens and some reporting of the frequency of fines imposed Make dog owners more aware of the problems and take appropriate action with the ones who don't comply. Maybe an initial warning and then a fine, funds raised could go some way to the clean-up. Increased public awareness campaign and increased education of dog owners. Strict enforcement of any laws introduced. Increase the number of bins for disposal of dog waste with good signage Have restrictions where dogs walk. Irresponsible dog owners should be banned from owning/keeping/walking a dog. More bins need to be available. See attached. Educate the school children so they grow up to be responsible. More bins at popular walking routes-Start and end. Dog wardens: hit culprits in their pockets and publish how many have been caught and fined. Education of handlers/owners Lots-I've never seen anything tried in Holme Village. Education of owners-start with children. To create greater public awareness arrange for regular notices in the local press of reported incidents with update of statistical evidence to show that this new legislation is effective. Attitude change BUT this may only be achieved through legislation. More education of the public about the serious dangers to human health of dog excrement Fine the people who are regular offenders, making an example will make other offenders think twice Provision of waste bins for general/dog waste with warnings on about failure to clean up after dogs penalties made clear and also illnesses caught from dog faeces. The public should be able to report dog fouling, without the authorities seeing it done. Need far more 'dog poo' bins in South Lakeland and campaigns to give out poo bags. Difficult to motivate people to pick up e.g. Birkrigg Common where lot of sheep and horse poo. Making it more obvious that it is unacceptable in certain places. Education of owners. Generally in this area it is older people who don't seem to clean up after their dogs. Whether it is impossible for them to bend down to do it or they come from an age when one just didn't clear up I'm not sure. MORE bins to put our bags in please. Heavy fines. Make sure the people are caught and fine them. More bins. Anyone exercising a dog without carrying a number of collecting bags should be subject to fine. Prominent display of anti-fouling notices and maximum penalties which could be incurred. As mentioned above, in out of town/rural areas and away from dwellings, 'stick and flick' for removal from footpaths, and encouraging better training. Regular patrolled by dog wardens/community support officers. see above More access to bins and bags. Think there could well be but can’t think of any off-hand. If caught they shouldn’t be allowed to keep dogs also more bins available. More bins for dog faeces, especially where dog walking is prevalent. Dogs should always be on a lead outdoors and with a mouth restraint. Educate owners. Introduction of £100 minimum dog licences. Increased fines for owners who persist in letting their dogs foul and do not clean up after them. Education of dog owners about the hazards / risk this can pose - especially to children.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 91

Make people have dog licenses & Chip all dogs Ensure people are aware of necessity to remove dog faeces and reasons why i.e. not only unsightly but also health reasons. Provide more bins for dog mess. Current law is adequate, needs more policing/enforcement. Warning signs threatening prosecution. More bins for collection 'poo bags' One on Beemire in Windermere please! We need people out there to enforce the policy if put into place otherwise won't work. Local authority cleansing services Communication-to the fact that poo bags can be put into normal bins and that it is wrong and not to bag it and then dump the bag. Dog licenses. Provision of more conspicuous bins. Train dogs to foul in a designated area. The ideas stated above, but then for offenders who persist in allowing their dog to foul in public places which are heavily used and which clearly state faeces must be cleaned away, the fining needs to be followed through and acted upon- the threat is clearly not enough to deter some people. Review bin location / distribution to be in the most effective places where dog recreation takes place. Do not base it on a desk based exercise, review and consult with local dog walkers. Bins need to be positioned so as to allow owners to deposit the fouling in a suitable place and not just a hedge. Do not forget that the vast majority of Dog owners are highly responsible. Education. - it’s no good using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. The majority of those dog owners that are not responsible are serial offenders, often those that walk the same routes. if SLDC have so deep pockets that they can enforce this then they can at least use their enforcement officers to patrol the worst affected locations and try and find a culprit. Often fouling is only left when no one is looking.... By catch the culprit by encouraging law abiding citizens to confront or to have a point to where the incident (together with description of dog, easier than the owner) can be reported. Please don’t penalise the majority for the minority (in this case 1in50 or 2%. Have suitable collection bins at appropriate places, marked for dog litter. At present there are very few. Make dog fouling notices more prominent. Alert people to the result of breaking the law. Is there any additional way that leaving bags of dog litter could also be included in these by-laws? This appears to be an increasingly common finding on walks and is very unpleasant especially when the bags are hung on gate posts or left in prominent places More waste bins with bags available. You could put up more signs Provide more bins or poop scoop bins with poop bags. Higher fines. Clearer signing and better enforcement which on Grange Prom would be a full time job and therefore not viable. Increase fines, publicise the fines and who has been prosecuted. There are already legislations for dog fouling-why not enforce that? Impose already on dog food manufacturers and employ wardens with the funds as well. I have no problem with fouling in parks/towns but in the countryside i have a problem with the law regarding this. Licensing, compulsory training paid by the owner. No warnings-An immediate fixed penalty. It would be better to 'flick' anything on footpaths out of the way on open land. Verbal warnings from council officers. Educate people. Impounding and removal/licensing to keep dog. Fine heavily the owners-dog registration yearly More patrols to increase finding offenders & fining them. Cameras could be installed temporarily in problem areas to identify offenders. Dog Bins

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 92

More bins should be provided to encourage people to pick up and bin poo. Difficult to come up with alternative but how can it be policed effectively? 1. CCTV especially around schools 2. Dog Order hot line for ease of reporting issues as & when seen 3. Mailshots to all registered dog owners 4. Provision of more bins including designated poop-scoop bins When people acquire a dog the dog should be registered with a vets practice and have the animal chipped. Then the police or warden can check the animal randomly. Electronically. Traffic wardens could do dog fouling and general litter. Double the fixed penalty each time for further offences. More bins for full dog bags. Why not put up a notice=12 people fined for dog poo offences in this area. Prosecute dog owners who pick up and then throw the bag in the street or in bushes. Re-instate the dog license. Stronger penalties. Enforcement. 'Name and shame'-hardly ever any successful prosecutions. Dog warden/councillors need to target problem areas, carry out surveillance at appropriate times 7-9am, dusk. Limited use of CCTV cameras. Availability of bins/supply of plastic bags at park entrances (use sponsorship and advertising). Control of littering with dog pooh plastic bags. Make it an offence to dispose of faeces other than in a designated receptacle or by taking it home. It would be helpful to have more bins in the area - no body enjoys carrying poop around with them! Shame them! if they have any shame education On the spot fines Impound dogs belonging to owners who persistently offend. We already have Police Officers and Army of Local Government enforcers. There is no need for additional bylaws. Members of the public reporting offenders, follow them to their home and report time and place. Clearer notices and bigger penalties More waste bins. The provision of waste bins seems to have been on the decline for some years and it is no surprise that dog fouling has become such a problem. Whilst the minority of dog owners allowing the fouling to occur should be punished, the Council has to admit some responsibility for the lack of dog waste bins - I only know of one in whole of Kendal. bring back dog wardens More bins. Need to take action on offender. Stick and Flick. An even heftier fine. Training of dog owners and responsibility Dog owner training. You need to enforce these laws. People see notices but just flout them because there is nobody monitoring the situation By public education. By the provision of dog poo bins. By making controls suit the location. In towns, villages and organized public spaces (parks etc) fouling should be punished, in countryside areas where it cannot be policed, it should be ignored. Leaving bags of poo on site should be as much or more of an offence then leaving the mess on the ground. Yes in towns and villages it is a good policy but it just does not work in the countryside and is a policy that has gone horribly wrong. Are there sufficient bins available in the district? Perhaps if there were more, plus supplies of bags etc, people would find it easier to clear up after their dogs. Presumably the Dog Control Orders would be accompanied by a public relations exercise encouraging people to make more of an effort. Find the owners.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 93

Actually see owners being prosecuted for not cleaning up after their dogs! More dog fouling bins. Dog confiscated after _____ offences. "Your dog Your shit". Have areas where dogs can be free of a lead but owners clean up after them. Employing wardens to patrol between 6am to 9pm and 7pm to 10pm. Fine owners. Employ dog wardens to patrol between 6-9am and 7pm-10pm. Fine owners. Provision of bags by disposal points Penalties are useless if there is nobody to catch them in the first place. For repeat offenders-take their dog & forbid ownership of another Dogs should be on leads on roads. General wardens in the Grange area would be more high visibility - maybe to deter all sorts of anti- social behaviour! Dog DNA and proper fining for fouling not just the threat of as no-one believes they will be caught so don't bother to pick up Implementing fines to penalise dog owners who do not remove their dog's faeces from public footpaths and public areas. More publicity and more bins for dog faeces. Increase the number patrols, give the public a hotline number to report nuisance/persistent offenders in their area, more bins and more articles in the gazette on the nuisance caused. More patrolling and more notices on each entry to field. Education and training for new dog owners on their responsibilities. If people don’t listen then there isn’t much you can do unless there are wardens there constantly in the worst hit areas. I’m totally against dogs not being able to be let off the lead and go to certain places, I’m a responsible dog owner, why should my dog suffer because some people just don’t care, and unfortunately that’s just how society is now. On the spot fine, introduction of dog wardens, more bins, although Staveley is well served by bins, so well done there. Free dog bags. How about a positive measure if someone is spotted picking up litter that is not theirs they could be rewarded. I am consistently picking up litter from others. More bins provided (and emptied regularly). Provide more dog bins and provide poo bags also. Education of owners and children important. perhaps vets could give information to new owners on classes safety, hygiene etc. 1- Dog DNA register. 2- Name and shame convicted dog owners. 3-Deal with dog owners who put dog faeces in plastic bags and then thrown them on the ground. "Naming and shaming" publicising successful prosecutions in the local press. See above. Frequently people who pick up after their dogs just throw the bag into the undergrowth, the very worst form of litter. LOTS of new bins will be needed and fines that hurt. Dog wardens-fining owners. Bring back the dog license this will then pay for a dog warden. More enforcement officers visible so people can be fined. Community service for offending dog-owners. Education of owners and dog licensing. Have poo bins in problem areas, e.g. there is only one bin on the circular route from Oxenholme to the Helm (on A65) perhaps if there was a bin on Helmside road (where there is a fouling problem, including bagged poo), nr the railway station, or near the Helm road dog owners would be encouraged to clean up their mess. Dogs on leads at all times. Heavier fines and more patrolling. Key will be enforcement won’t it, if order is not enforced then little point. Fines and signs. Education of all dog owners no matter what age and higher fines and names of these guilty should be named and shamed in the press!! More litter bins on popular dog walking routes. Provision of more bins to dispose of dog poop bags.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 94

Monitor it more see someone with dog patrol jackets on. Heavy fine to the owner and name and photograph in a local paper. Fines need to be substantial and well publicised to discourage others Provide more dog poo bins. It’s no good collecting it if there is nowhere to dispose of it. All dogs to be chipped, CCTV to be used in areas of high problem with built in chip readers to tie the pictures and dog together. name and shame the owner Publicity and peer pressure. See attached document. Enforce existing orders. Encourage police to enforce existing laws, they do not currently More bins! Provide more litter bins Really big fines-problem is enforcing the law Print names of those caught not clearing up after their dog-name and shame. Put the fine price up Greater enforcement More dog waste receptacles Perhaps more signage (but not too many) Re-introduce dog licenses at a practical level, say 50GBP per annum to sort out dog lovers from mere dog owners. confiscate the dog and ban ownership of dogs for persistent offenders Heavy fines. Enforce existing pooper scoop laws. Dog licences. Zero Tolerance. It needs to become socially unacceptable-But I don’t know how you achieve that! More prosecutions. Provide more bins to encourage people to pick up as other authorities do around the country. Notices. Consider realistically priced dog licenses. Repeated offenders should have dog taken away. Not needed. CCTV Film owner and dog fouling -then ask them if they have broken byelaw. Prosecute. Public taking photos and reporting. As stated - provide many more bins and EMPTY them. More bins on the prom at Grange NOT less. Sunday am they are full! Provide more ways for owners to dispose of waste none dog bins I’m sure would help and give people less chance of complaining. Education, more provision of bins with possible bags provided, and fines for offenders Dog owners ought to abide by the law and tidy up afterwards and bin it. Very difficult to monitor or police most dogs fouling offences occur when there is nobody around-most dog owners do pick up when they know their being watched. Owners warned, repeated offences, owners fined. Ultimate: persons not allowed to own a dog. More publicity about dangers/anti-social aspects and change in culture. Dog owners are responsible for dog behaviour and really it should be brought home to them. Provide bins in urban areas and villages and educate dog-owners. I was impressed on a recent visit to London - walking around the parks - very little dog mess, lots of dogs and everyone dutifully picking up and placing in the bin. They have all become 'educated' - we just need to do the same here in our urban areas and parks. Fine the owners heavily as they are ultimately responsible and most do not care about the problem!! DOG MANAGEMENT CLASSES More officers available to patrol.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 95

Stronger fines for offenders Have 'pick up poo' days once a month or year as they do with 'no smoking days’. It is about creating new habits and a dedicated day is a good way to get the message across. Flagging Poo - marking poo in pink so people see it is a good way to highlight it but better to have a newsworthy day and a 'pick up poo day' where people gather and collect poo. Like we do for picking up rubbish. Info in tourist centres for dog owners that highlights that ' all poo should be picked up' to make a point that the Lakes national park is a special place where you have to act different to other parts of the country. 'Protect Lakeland from Poo' is a positive message rather than a negative one. Providing more bins in which to place 'poo bags', try providing bags alongside the bins. (as in Sweden, where I have seen this used successfully). The problem is there are no bins in the area to put the dog mess in. some people pick it up but then throw the bag in the beck behind our house on Rydal road. As an Animal Enforcement Officer myself I deal with these matters daily - we also tackle through promotions and education. We hand out free bags whilst on patrol as this is often a more favourable option to issuing FPN's. Visits to schools and local groups, also developing neighbourhood dog watch schemes and encourages community involvement Strongly enforce any orders Have more litter bins, and empty them more often. Dogs should be kept on leads at all times when in the street or on public access areas. Higher fines Deal with offending dog owners quickly clean the streets more often Make it an offence to "bag and chuck" as is frequently seen. Publically naming and shaming culprits dogs to be kept on the leads in public areas signs made by school children about the dangers of dog faeces Enforce the fouling laws. The dog owners that can't be bothered to pick up are likely to be the ones that wouldn't register their dogs if they all had to be registered. Education of the public over clearing up after dogs. Provision of bins for dog mess. Educating children in school Public information campaign on TV/radio Higher profile of prosecutions Those prosecuted to do community service cleaning dog mess off streets AS WELL AS the fine In urban areas have designed dog exercise areas. Better enforcement, coupled with naming and shaming of offenders in local press. More signs and give police more authority in villages etc. EDUCATION Raise awareness of the dangers to health from dog fouling, reintroduce dog licences (linked to chipping) and create a realistic chance of being caught and heavily fined if you allow your dog to foul the streets. More dog bins that are emptied by SLDC at no extra cost!! Dog licences compulsory. Leads compulsory at all times. Make it easier to get the offender caught. more dog wardens. Make more places that dogs are not allows especially playing fields and school playgrounds. Stronger penalties. Fine them and publish names in local papers. Dog owners should be required to purchase 'official dog bags' with their unique coded number on it so that a trace could be made. However, this would need to be a nation-wide project to have total effect. Dog waste bins should be supplied in car parks. Markers/cones could be placed over fouling to 1. Prevent accidental transfer to pedestrians 2. Highlight the problem to the community.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 96

Prosecute dog owners who do not clean up after their dog. Say what you mean. Prosecution. Continual rising of awareness and associated problems. Appealing to folk’s better neighbourliness. Provide more bins. Dog licensing could be reintroduced. Make owners of fouling dogs clear up a section of fouled pathways, 1. Provide more bins 2. Provide bag-stations beside each bin ... this system worked very well in Scotland. Name & Shame in local papers ALL pets should be licenced in the first place...not every Tom Dick and Harry should automatically have the right to own pets and strong penalties should exist to anyone unable or unwilling to care for a pet. This should reduce the amount of people owning pets who can't be bothered to look after them properly and therefore, reduce the poo problem. 1)if there are repeat offenders - their dog should be destroyed and they should not be allowed to keep anymore 2) name and shame - put name and address in local paper of irresponsible dog owners 3) where non- payment of fines either option 1 (above) or court could make offenders go around cleaning up dog mess More bins and reminders to pick dog dirt up. Make an example of a few dog owners who allow their dogs to foul public areas by taking legal proceedings against them. A few prosecutions, widely publicized, and word would soon get round to other irresponsible dog owners. Must include pavements and roads. More wardens needed. Check CCTV for dog fouling instances and act accordingly. Persistent prosecution is needed not an initial crackdown & then left. It needs to be on going. With a anonymous phone line. For public to call & report Providing more bins would encourage clearing up. and when places are covered with ordinary rubbish anyway people aren't inclined to put any more effort in. Start prosecuting people, as stated, I have not heard of a single person getting fined or otherwise prosecuted under current legislation, so new laws won't make any difference unless they are enforced. TV awareness - make it antisocial and very uncool Printing names in Gazette. Important to tackle dog fouling in towns, pavements, major pathways but unnecessary in the wild/fell areas in Cumbria. CCTV. The provision of far more bins, dedicated Freephone number to report incidents, far more dog wardens on the street. Fines need to be followed through!! More bins especially in villages. More signs. Heavy fines More litter bins needed in key areas where dogs are likely to be exercised. See above re plastic bags, which are a crime on the environment Cameras Stronger penalties/ people on patrol. More patrols of public footpaths Consider taking a DNA sample of the faeces so they can successfully prosecute an owner after they have left the scene - this was considered by South Somerset DC based on systems in place in parts of Germany, Israel and Spain. Also, in the areas that are deemed a big problem, could it not be possible to post a warden? Perhaps the people who complain the most about it in their area could help with identifying the best time to watch. The threat of a fine is simply not enough. I do not leave my dog mess because there is a sign saying 'fine' I clear up because I think it is unpleasant if someone sees it and or steps in it. If someone does not care for other peoples experiences, then maybe the knowledge that they can be prosecuted after they have left the area, may be enough to deter them. Better warning signs.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 97

It is pointless saying that there is a fine of up to £1000 for offenders when there does not seem to be any fines actually levied. The irresponsible dog owners are aware of this and either completely disregard the fact, or if anyone happens to be around, bag the waste and then later toss the bag in the nearest convenient (to them) place to avoid taking it home. The real problem is how to catch the miscreants. Current legislation is not enforced nor the reasons behind the legislation adequately communicated. Legislation should be enforced to deal with both the dog-owner who fails to clear up after their dog and also deal with dog-owners who litter their poo-bags in the hedges, trees and under rocks of the paths, woods and parkland 1. Enforce existing powers. 2. Education and publicity. 3. Encourage and support parish councils to issue orders where they perceive there is a problem that cannot be dealt with in other ways. More notices. Provision of more litter bins. As a dog owner, I always pick up my dog's mess. However, I sometimes see that it isn't picked up and sometimes even worse, it is bagged in a plastic bag then the bag is dumped! I think to help solve this problem, dog waste bins in areas where fowling is a problem would encourage dog owners to pick up the mess as they would have somewhere to dispose of the bag instead of having to keep hold of it the whole way around their walk. I appreciate that the cost of emptying and upkeep of these bins would likely to be outside the budget of SLDC but is there a compostable way to dispose of dog waste? Perhaps if bags were sold that would decompose and various sites made available where the mess could be left to decompose? I don't know enough about recycling or composting of dog mess but I'm sure there is someone at SLDC that is qualified to advice on this. Larger fine Have a number of dog wardens on patrol Provision of more dog waste bins in the area As a responsible dog owner I always pick up after my dog. However, the problem for many people comes in wondering what to do with the faeces once they have collected it when there are no bins around. Especially if they also intend to go to the shops or to a cafe as part of the walk, or stop to chat to people or need to shake hands or kiss people in greeting whilst holding it! I have noticed that there is a complete lack of a suitable bag in which to place your bag of dog poo to take it home and put it in your own bin. A stylish bag with a wipe clean interior with compartments for a scooper, a bag of poo, some empty poo bags, and a small disinfectant spray would be very useful. SLDC could run a young people's product art competition to come up with a few designs, and a local sponsor could produce the winning design in large quantities and sell it throughout the Lakes marketed as the fashionable must have for dogs and their walkers. That would help to create a culture here where it becomes trendy to be a responsible dog owner. A percentage of the sale price could go towards paying dog wardens in popular areas who would also be able to sell the poo bags. Another idea would be to require all dog owners to be licensed (rather than the dogs licensed), and have to pay x amount per year per dog. They could be provided with a roll of poo bags and the above bag as part of the package. Introduce dog licences which could fund the appointment of dog wardens. These wardens should be armed with video cameras and should have the power to hand out on the spot fines to culprits and take persistent offenders to court. I would also like to see most of the footpaths closed to dog walkers. This would make it safer for us all especially children and would be easier to police the footpaths accessible to dog walkers Yes, provide more dog bins in Ulverston. It would encourage more people to clean it up and bin it rather than leaving the bags swinging from fences/trees or rotting on pathways. (Especially on The Hoad!) Provide facilities (i.e. bins and scoops/bags) and educate the public. Provide "poo bag" dispensers in well-used areas, e.g. promenade, so that dog owners who have "forgotten" to bring one can obtain one. More publicity to encourage dog owners to be responsible. Public education, e.g. through notices, articles in local magazines

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 98

If an owner contravenes the act 3 times they should be banned from owning a dog for life. Any other member of the household would be on a 1 strike and out. To prevent passing ownership to spouses or children etc. only to see the same problems continue. A couple of dog poo bags dispensers strategically located. Enclosed dog fouling areas on public spaces. To have enclosed dog fouling areas on public parks and dog bins but once dog has been would still be able to have a free run on rest of park. People keep too many dogs in unsuitable areas cleaning up of dog dirt still leave a mess does it not? And dogs urinating what about that? Put SMALL but high-vis notices on way sign posts to remind dog walkers. Community order- time spent clearing up dog fouling. A litter bin or dog bin on High Tenterfell. On the spot fines Ensure the laws are enforced. There are by- laws available now, but they are not enforced and the council does not have the resources to monitor compliance and enforce. Unknown (more publicity?) Name and shame in local paper. Leave/ask public minded citizens and dog walkers to name and shame the guilty. Signs to remind dog owners of their responsibilities to other members of the public (including popular rural walking areas). Education of owners. Education. Looking after our area and keeping it clean could have a place on the school curriculum. Community clean ups on a grand scale may also help. I’d like to see more people taking pride in this beautiful area. On the spot fines temporary surveillance cameras (a camera from our back window would work wonders!) I agree with instant penalties being issued and if the dog owner doesn't remove the waste and pay the penalty then a fine of up to £250 could be issued. Why don't we already have dog wardens in South Lakeland who could deal with offending dog owners? The problem at the moment is that nobody seems to enforce the existing regulations so it is left to individuals in each locality to challenge the dog owners and this can lead to awkward situations. It also means that other dog owners who do clean up after their dogs are made to feel guilty because they are tarred with the same brush. Prosecute persistent re-offenders. I am not really sure just how you could enforce it Education Education Licensing and chipping of dogs. STRONGER ENFORCEMENT. Owners need to be educated. More bins in appropriate places, e.g. at the top of Victoria Road North, Windermere where people come down from School Knott and have nowhere to deposit their waste. More publicity and education of the owners. Provide more bins - and not necessarily specific dog bins. Totally agree that dog waste should be removed by owners from pavements and paths but where there are no regularly emptied bins and abundant vegetation where natural decomposition can take place, 'stick and flick' seems reasonable. More dog bins and prosecution of offenders Authority being active and fining the owners Put up notices to say that dogs are not allowed on children's play areas. Education, publicity and the availability of biodegradable disposal bags and disposal bins. All the money spent on Road Shows, Leaflets, and Questionnaires etc. would be better spent on employing Dog Wardens and on the spot fines for offenders. The irresponsible few will not take notice

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 99 of new laws. Where dogs are known to be walked by their owners bins are needed to drop bags. You cannot put it in a pocket. Guidance, removal of dog fouling in public/ children locations and no dogs in play grounds but in the outdoors - stick and flick method should be used. Dog wardens need to be out on the streets early. Where I live on Hallgarth, people let their dogs out at 6.00am (they can't be bothered to take them out themselves) and a lot of them seem to come round to our cul de sac. There's always lots of dog mess round by me. hefty licence for all non-working dogs registration fee licence for working dogs Both to include chipping and DNA profile Any owner of dog convicted of fouling public place to lose licence and right to keep dog plus fine and costs (these to include DNA test on faeces ) Any unlicensed dogs found to be confiscated and destroyed within 7 days if not rehomed in that time (or fines paid if owner known ) you only need an officer either police or council to patrol these areas and give out a few large fines - news will soon spread these are small areas in a very parochial community 'Stick and flick'. Dogs trained to 'go' off road/pathway e.g. under hedges. Name and shame in the local press, SLDC website. Have more dog wardens around to catch people, not just in town centres but visible in residential areas too to at times when a lot of people are dog walking to discourage people from leaving dog mess. Better neighbourhood policing of existing penalties. More general bins and not just for dog fouling. Dogs should be licensed and fee paid yearly. Enforce current laws. Have poo bag dispensers on lamp post or next to bins, wardens should keep an eye open, more posters out saying you are being watched. More awareness of problems to dog owners. More dog wardens to warn people and persistent offenders = fines. More bins and in some areas provision of 'poop bags'. This would encourage clean up. I have seen this in Lancaster. Zero tolerance. Heavier fines. Limit the number of dogs per household to one and per dog walker to one. More education for dog owner’s compulsory courses-but this costs all the rate payers money. Warn dog owner, and issue confirmation of this. On (say 3rd) further offence, forbid owner to keep a dog. Enforce on the spot fines and stop pussyfooting around. Impound potentially dangerous dogs and have them put down. At the moment the vast majority of dog owners merely harass and intimidate the rest of us. Provide more bins to enable people to dispose of without carrying for miles As a volunteer litter-picker, I am very aware of the problem of dog fouling near to Grange Primary School - children will sometimes be carrying dog faeces into school on their shoes and this is a health hazard. I would also like to see a heavy fine for improper disposal of dog muck bags - it is simply not acceptable to throw the bag on the ground/under a bush or to hang it on a tree. Everyone I speak to is very angry at this common practice. More litter bins would help but a hefty fine is also needed, and strenuous efforts must be made to catch and prosecute offenders. To provide a confidential number people can phone to report incident of abuse of an order. If not already done create a database for reported problems and observations by monitors/dog wardens and use the info to target subsequent policing. Post more notices in established popular areas and especially where there is a history of problems. Encourage responsible dog owners to form action groups themselves to enable a coordinated feedback to SLDC/Police. I say 'yes' but how on earth do you get through to people who have no responsibility and let their animals out to run free?

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 100

Must be cleaned off footpaths and placed in appropriate bin in town, but in the countryside could be 'flicked' into undergrowth, brambles etc.(The Forestry Commission successfully adopt this policy). Otherwise, many people sling their 'bag of pooh' into the bushes when no one is looking and it hangs there for the next 50 years like a Christmas decoration! (Serpentine Woods are a good example!) In more country areas there are no nearby bins so dog owners won't carry the bags on a long walk and so they 'off load' it. If 'flicked' into the undergrowth it will have biodegraded within 6 weeks, however, if it's in a 'thrown' bag it could be there for years! heavy fines The dog owner has to be made ashamed if his/her dog fouls a public place. Offenders must be made an example of and if this means a fine so be it. No doubt it may take some time to get the message across but constant reminders from all sections of the community will prove effective. More bins to start with. There is obviously a need for this as mess is collected in bags and then stuffed into dry stone walls. Dog fouling fees are in place when mess isn't picked up. This should also include not disposing of it correctly. Clamp down on fines and reward those that do keep their area tidy. PAINTED MARKINGS ON THE PAVEMENTS MORE SIGNS PATROLS Perhaps licensing/ micro chipping Dog owners should be required to hold a licence or have their dogs micro chipped. People should think more before keeping a dog, about when and where it can be exercised. If there is nowhere appropriate nearby they should not choose to keep a dog. More dog waste bins may encourage people to pick up after their dog. If funds allowed more PCSO's or Dog Wardens should be available to monitor areas. Name & Shame Sandylands Spar used to put notices up naming people whose dogs had fouled their shop frontage. Visible officer walking the area. I support dog licences and micro chipping of dogs, particularly in a rural area where livestock and birds are at risk. I love dogs, but they are domestic animals and should therefore be treated as adjuncts of the household Much higher fines to cover the cost of enforcement, so those that create the problem pay for it, not the general taxpayer. Compulsory DNA testing of dogs so source of faeces can be identified. All paid for by owners of dogs as tax on dog food. Bins and poop scoops or bags should be provided. Many councils across the country do this. Create dog walking areas where bins, bags and scoops are provided. This will encourage owners to behave more responsibly. The magistrates must invoke the fine of a £1000 as displayed on many lamp posts. It would only need to be applied once or twice and the publicity would do the rest. Problem solved. The fines at present are not a deterrent. The most common problem of dog fouling I have seen, and continue to see regularly is the fouling of 'guide dogs' especially at the lake near Millerground. I understand the problems with guide dogs etc - but more often than not the person with the dog is being assisted by another able bodied person. Provide poo bag dispensers in known hot spots and implement measures to police, e.g. plain clothes officers / CCTV Stiffer penalties for owners, enforce the by-laws, Is it a criminal offence? If not it should be. Culprits should be publically named and shamed. Display of photos of the offending owners. Education. More fines will soon encourage others. How would you enforce the order? What proof is required? Education does not work-fine is the only way. Report repeated offenders to local council office. Perhaps the installation of more dog-foul bins would help. I am a responsible dog owner and always clear up after my dog so it’s difficult to understand why people wouldn't. I think that if dogs had to keep on leads all the time that this wouldn't reduce the 'mess' problem as it would just act to punish the law-

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 101 abiding dog owners (who clear up anyway.) More fines (after 2 warnings) CCTV Special bins in appropriate places might help. Publicity about dog poo bags might be useful. Awareness campaign. Poo bags delivered to owners on request by bin men. I have 2 dogs which I walk twice daily in the Castle Green Lane, Larch Grove area and there are no bins provided. Providing more bins and keeping them emptied may assist those who really try to do poop and scoop. Provide at least more bins in popular open air and dog walking spots and potentially bags in real problem areas so people have no excuse. Also note campaign below - positive message approach... http://www.keepbritaintidy.org/Campaigns/Campaigns/dogpoofairy/Default.aspx INSTAL MORE BINS SHOOT DOG! PROHIBITIVE FINES MORE DOG WARDEN PATROLS ESPECIALLY WITHIN TOWN MORE SIGNAGE Empower and fund wardens to catch and prosecute offenders. Ensuring that adequate resource is available and for those failing to clear up after their dog-legal process is applied i.e. imposing fines will send out a clear message. To date not enough down. Prosecution. CCTV in major problem areas or spraying with coloured disinfectant. More street cleansing? It would be a good idea if certain areas were policed occasionally and offenders fined. They would surely think twice before letting it happen again. Educate children at school to the problems and hazards with fouling-design posters and take info home. Provide additional bins at start of major footpaths e.g. Top of Silverdale road by woodland path (Arnside) More bins and bags and fines for those who flaunt the laws. There needs to be an 'authorised' person who can enforce the order e.g. community police office on patrol. If a dog is on a lead it does not mean its owner will pick up its mess. If a dog cannot play on a specified area it will just mean there will be more mess on the pavements. We are being very successful working on this ourselves and the help from SLDC, although helpful has very minor impact compared with what we can achieve ourselves by friendly word of mouth. SLDC involvement is for the most part a waste of your time, our time and our money. Responsible owners clear up as appropriate. Open patrols of areas where there are problems by enforcement officers at the peak time’s people are walking their dogs - early morning and evening. Not much point during the day when most people are at work. Train dog to eat at certain times, so it does not foul when out walking. Provide more poo bins they are too widely spaced on the footpaths from the estate routes into town. Additional bins to place the poop bags in! Too many people saying that the bins are full or not enough of them! Wildman Street and Ann Street in particular are always a mess with dog fouling everywhere you do really need to watch where you are walking and there are no bins within this vicinity. POINT OUT TO THE PUBLIC THERE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS TO HUMAN HEALTH. CHILDREN IN PARTICULAR. Fine a few owners, name and shame More dog wardens Provide more bins: some people pick up 'poo' then throw the bag into the hedge rather than carry it around with them. By finding offenders. Dog licensing with DNA matching of dog to faeces.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 102

Social pressure has greatly improved attitudes in many, but not all, areas Enforce the existing bye-laws. Putting up warning notices is NOT enough. Strictly enforce existing bye-laws. Designated areas for dogs to foul-still pick up though People have to be responsible for their own dogs. Fine people on the spot See attached letter Implement the order for pavements, playgrounds and public parks, and enforce it. It is no good having an order and not enforcing it. If the £1000 penalty was used and widely publicised - name & shame - I am sure this would be a bigger deterrent than placing even more restrictions on dogs/owners - the majority of whom are law abiding. A few such fines would quickly help eradicate the problem: SLDC has been approached by people who know where incidents take place each morning & apparently you have not acted upon the information. If offenders feel they can get away with it, they will continue to do so. I speak as a dog lover & ex-dog owner. Dog licensing-large fines for fouling and name and shame owners. Better presence of enforcers. Publish when an on the spot fine is successful, so people know they could be fined Identify the owner of the dog through its licence. dog licences payable to the local parish At present, fines exist yet irresponsible owners are rarely caught. More vigorous "policing" of rules is necessary otherwise any further regulations are pointless. Provide more dog bins in "hot spot" areas and dispensers of poo bags. More 'poop scoop' bins specifically for this purpose especially along paths frequently used to walk dogs in rural areas. PROHIBIT THE GUILTY FROM KEEPING DOGS. Greater publicity and targeting of areas with higher visibility of enforcement wardens . I have lived in grange over sands for 21 years and have never seen a dog warden?? Lots more rubbish bins, where there are some, they are well used. Encourage everyone to challenge someone when they see someone allowing their dog to foul and not cleaning up after them. Naming and shaming when offenders are caught - they should be so embarrassed they hopefully won't do it again. Making it clearer that normal bins can be used as well as dedicated dog bins. More opportunities for disposal of dog waste that is picked up by owners. We find dog waste deposited in our domestic bin because owners have picked up but have had nowhere to leave the poo bag. If there are no bins owners of dogs are less likely to pick up. Enlist the public to help catch and prosecute persistent offenders in their area. A possible way is to name offenders via the press etc as most sensible persons would probably be horrified by the prospect. Unfortunately the many who do not pick-up spoil it for those who do Make it an offence to leave faeces bags in public places. -Ban persistent offenders from owning dogs. -Force offenders to keep a designated area clear off all faeces and bags (from any dog/ for _ _ _ _) Not sure. More poop bins and poop bags. Introduction of effective dog licencing as recommended in the 2010 report commissioned by the RSPCA ‘Improving Dog Ownership: The economic case for dog licensing' There is demonstrable support from the general public and dog owners for the introduction of effective dog licensing and the case for such a change is unanswerable in terms of public health, animal welfare, the safety of children and the costs to the public purse. Cameras which would be expensive on all public pathways. The new powers will only be of use if they are adequately enforced. Will there be sufficient numbers on the beat to enforce these new powers?

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 103

Enforce the law that already exists!! If you have the manpower to police the 'new law' then use them to police the existing law. Introduce dog licenses again and make "chipping" compulsory-increased revenue would help to fund dog wardens! Larger Fines Dogs to be kept on leads in built up areas. Education Provision of more bins for dog excreta especially in urban areas. Stiffer penalties, larger fines. Provision of a bin in Joss Lane Sedbergh where it narrow to encourage people whose dogs cant "wait" till the fell grass. If an owner is caught allowing a dog to foul, the dog should be destroyed. Dog registration/chipping Get tougher on the dog owners I think fines should be hefty in areas such has pavements and children’s play areas. The problem is that most dog owners do pick up after their dogs and the ones that don't are the ones who are most likely to go against the byelaws. Should be able to report people ourselves. Educate the owners. Making people pay a fine-maybe set up a patrol to give the person the authority to put it in action. Increased awareness in terms of environmental impact and health, both to animals and humans, should be made, not simply the nuisance factor. Additionally, it would be helpful if towns had 'dog friendly' areas, safe secure areas that owners can let their dogs off the lead and peer pressure could result in the removal of dog waste. education Publicity campaigns. Provision of more waste bins. Campaign of education concerning good dog ownership and the responsibilities associated with that A few bins on footpaths for dog owners for deposit 'dog poo bags' rather than leaving bags in the hedge. Notices should also specify to take dog litter away dispose in a bin. Dog licenses and 'chipping' of dogs in neck. Bringing back the dog license fee along with chipping. Could influence number of people obtaining dogs. Control orders and dog patrols. But the one that springs to mind would not be acceptable in a civilised society! Provision of more bins. Bring back dog licenses with a DNA test, which can then be used to identify the dog concerned, with a fine to pay costs. HOLME-KENDAL AREA. MORE POOH BINS IF POSSIBLE IN STRATEGIC PLACES CANAL TOW PATHS-LANCASTER CANAL. EMPLOY DOG WARDENS I think that a problem lies with irresponsible ownership, so either letting dogs out on their own, or not being prepared. Not sure what you can do about those people. Provide more bins and more people will pick up! Publish names and addresses of offending dog owners i.e. name & shame In Brussels there are special designated areas (screened sand pits) where dogs are allowed to do anything (cleansed by council). Dog awareness Provide more bins; this is the biggest complaint from dog walkers!! It need to enforced that people cannot just open up their front doors to let their dogs roam the area and defecate in neighbours gardens etc. shoot them

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 104

Holiday makers are often the guilty parties. Notices in hotel and B & B rooms might help. Confronting these people might discourage them from holidaying again in the area, which nobody wants. More patrolling of the area, fines for those leaving mess, even cameras I guess in prime areas. Stick and flick in certain areas, such as the Forestry Commission recommend, as picking up is not environmentally friendly. I would also like to see more bins, which are also actually emptied, for where picking up is required. Open spaces in Scotland have signs asking dog owners to flick the poo into bushes etc with a stick, so away from walking areas. Better for the environment, less bags in landfill etc and a lot friendlier and more welcoming! I believe dog owners should have to contribute to the costs of dealing with any implications resulting from their decisions and actions through restoration of the dog licence fee. Legislation without enforcement brings the law into disrepute, and enforcement costs should not come from general revenue, but as user pay. (What has this consultation cost?) In addition, I would like to see the provision of designated dog exercise areas, which could obviously be funded by fee revenues. I have seen them adopted with great success in other jurisdictions, providing great places for social interaction of owners as well as dogs, and reducing the pressure and annoyance to people who do not wish to interact intimately with hordes of dogs in open public spaces. Provision of dog waste bins I have seen (in Italy) fenced-off corners of parks designated for dogs where they can play, run freely and defecate. There are seats adjacent for their owners. Apart from for access dogs are excluded from all other parts of the park. It's brilliant and it works! Display warning notices and impose strict penalties. 1. There could be warning notices about dog fouling in public thoroughfares and stricter penalties levied. 2. Explanatory leaflets available to the public warning of health hazards from dog fouling. There should be more control of the orders application. Also faeces removed should be properly disposed of. Punishment-clean up in streets for a certain amount of time (community service after work). TV adverts locally/nationally. Catch the offenders and do not penalise responsible owners with well trained dogs. Fine extensively. More advertisement/higher fines/educate. Media attention highlighting the health hazards and the anti-social nature if this offence. More bins. More policing and penalties. Provide more obvious dog poo bins More and better labelled disposal facilities, improved signage, education, peer pressure and CCTV. A dog warden could have been employed for the cost of the consultation. Volunteer wardens (as in the National Park) could be organised from amongst concerned dog owners and others who would be happy to help preserve our environment. Who Name and shame owners (photograph and name on lamp posts) Make it unacceptable like drink driving now is-how to do that? Don't know. Employ poo picker uppers as they do in France Dogs should be kept on a lead at all times & should only be allowed in designated dog walking areas/routes. Have more dog wardens with on the spot fines or warnings and names taken .Or give permission to the public to remind offenders of their negligence Public parks where children play should be 'dog free' areas i.e. no dogs allowed. I quite like the suggestion in a letter to Westmorland Gazette of DNA tracking from faeces back to dog database. I believe the problem is a small number of persistent offenders who believe they won't be caught. Better signage and appropriate action to offenders especially night time walkers! Encourage the public to whistle blow on irresponsible dog owners.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 105

Reduce fouling by uncontrolled dogs by lobbying for dog licencing which would reduce numbers kept particularly by irresponsible owners. All dogs should be identifiable. On the spot fines on the spot fines and keep dogs on leads in parks etc , so the owners cannot say they have not seen their pets foul Fine irresponsible dog owners. Need dedicated Dog Wardens. Reduce number of dogs. This Country/County is awash with them! Enforce compulsory dog control training. Licence dogs. Introduce compulsory dog licenses at 3100 to £150 per year per dog. Allow volunteer dog poo wardens to spray paint any poo they find with high visibility paint to highlight the scale of the problem. Education as for the responsibilities of keeping a dog. Adequate bins in key areas. Bags available also (seen in some areas). Make greater use of dog wardens, even increasing their number. On the spot fines from dog warden. No dogs to be off lead in public areas. All dogs to be micro chipped. Education through targeting dog owners. Education of children and adults as to the health risks dog fouling inflicts upon both-but especially babies and children. Restrict dog ownership. Ensure all dogs are chipped and registered (as in the past) so that dogs can be identified. Then use publicity and education. As above, more bins would make it much better for dog walkers to adhere to law. Regular patrolling by an authorised person (at different times). Better education of owners, and in 'wild' open areas to encourage owners to 'flick' or move their dog's faeces well away from a track or path. Appropriate orders in locations where dog fouling is or could be a genuine problem, rather than a very rare possibility. Pick it up. Owners could use their own land. More and more people have 2 or 3 dogs today instead of children. Re-introduce dog licenses and animal fee to prohibit irresponsible people from owning dogs. You could microchip the dogs at the same time which will allow you to control/know what dogs belong to whom. Requires dog fouling to become socially unacceptable. Culture change as well as legislation Compulsory micro chipping at owners cost to register dogs and their owners. But you will not have the resources to "police" this so arguably - what is the point?? Higher fines, stronger police / warden presence. Educate adults and children more about why they should pick up their dog mess. Employ a community dog warden to patrol the estates. Introduce a licence fee or dog tax for each dog in SLDC's area. Some families have a number of dogs and each dog should be walked on a lead. Wardens "policing" various areas of land at undisclosed times to apprehend the people who do not clean up after their dog. More frequent fining of those who do not clean up. Provide areas specifically for dogs to run free as they do in most states in the U.S.A. Dogs should be able to run free, banning them from all green areas will probably result in a lot more of unwanted dogs. My family between have 5 rescue dogs, and the centres are always full. Dog owners need to take a torch out with them on dark evenings to see what the dog has done. Make people clean up after their dog it only takes one minute to do so. Do regular checks-early morning, school run times and evenings-fine harshly for those who offend. Reinstate dog licenses. Enforcing and providing bins. More patrolling by dog wardens. More prosecutions.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 106

More signage in residential areas, esp. on dog walking routes. Education of owners Provide more bins in car parks, to encourage 'scooping'. As a general improvement the 'old' dog license should be re-introduced and it should be a requirement that all dogs are micro chipped so owners can be identified. Putting a dog on a lead will not stop dog fouling. Have observed a dog fouling when on lead and the owner has pretended to not notice and walk on. Equally have witnessed many owners exercising their dogs that do stop and pick up after their pets whether on lead or not. Better provision of waste disposal. Too many people put faeces in plastic bags then dump them, probably because of difficulty of disposal. Better patrolling early am and late evening. Need to educate children- some parents let dogs out with children that are too young (they don't clean up after the dog or let them off their lead), Find a way to increase policing and bring successful prosecutions. Possibly by involving responsible dog owners. Encourage shops to be more obvious about poo bags. Display better. In the last 10 years more people pick up after dogs because it is the norm and from pressure from other walkers and dog owners not because of officials 'policing' it. Stop dog owners collecting the faeces in a bag and hanging on hedges/fences? Reintroduce the dog licence at around the level of a colour TV licence. Perhaps the RSPCA could collect & enforce this? Dog license should be reinstated Target the regular offenders. It's a sad fact that the minority, as usual, spoil it for the majority. If specific areas are continually being fouled it is very likely to be done by same dog walkers each time. provide waste bins prominently sited All dogs should be kept on leads in all public access areas. always make penalties very onerous so irresponsible owners don't just shrug them off Actually fine dog owners, don't just put signs up! Specific allocated dog exercise areas in some parks/spaces and exclusion from others unless on lead. Targeted intensive education at worse affected areas. Providing more fouling bins for owners. General lack of bins in Ulverston. More centre signage-obvious patrols warden! Educate all dog owners especially before purchasing a dog Bring back dog licenses-£25 per year to pay for dog wardens. For people not to feel intimidated by confronting dog. Provide more dog bags and bins. Police and community support officers to enforce current legislation. Fines. Education Maybe £1000 isn't enough Have more litter bins around. I have campaigned for more bins in the Endmoor area for the last 6 years and the parish council have finally bought one and put it in the Low Park area, where there was a previous problem of dog fouling More patrolling officers and more litter bins to place faeces in. How about reminder notices on pet food packaging...similar idea to the warnings on cigarette packets...? Just to bring the problem to people's attention. Enforce the current law. It is already an offence to leave dog faeces. It is not necessary to put them on a lead How did the trial work, in Ulverston I believe, of spraying offending dog faeces with colouring to highlight the issue? More severe fines Dogs are not the problem; it's the owners who are irresponsible. Return of licence fees for dogs may put some people off becoming owners. Linking fines with specialist owner responsibility classes, similar to points on your driving licence or taking a driving course. At each collection bin maintain a supply of bags for use by responsible dog owners.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 107

Stiffer penalties. Naming and shaming owners. More notices. More bins to deposit waste. (On public footpaths as well as on streets) Offenders should be given the opportunity of attending a course to educate them in the potential consequences of dog fouling in a similar way that those guilty of breaking a speed limit can attend a speed awareness course to avoid a fine. Dog bins. More dog waste bins all over the county. More bins for poop scoop bags that got emptied regularly How is this enforced? One person caught in 18 months in s.lakes is not enough. You already have powers to deal with this issue but don’t EVER enforce them. Provide more waste bins/police the problem/better enforcement. require dog owners not to place dog faeces in plastic bags then dump the bags on stone walls, grassland, anywhere at all I think that Dog Fouling becomes a cultural issue. It should become unacceptable to let your dog foul the streets or playing fields for instance. There also needs to be a greater sense of pride in having clean streets. We have noticed that in Ulverston where dog fouling particularly of alley ways was a huge issue that there has been a real improvement. It is very important that visitors, both business and tourist, are impressed with our street cleanliness. Make it less attractive to own dogs. Make it illegal to hang bags full of dog mess from trees. Doggy loos, heavier fine. Publish their names in the local paper when they are fined. Irresponsible owners need to be trained. public education Provide more dog fouling bins, "free" pooh bags, more warning signs More publicity Live and let live. Dog warden in Grange Over Sands. Fine the owners. Better education of dog owners on the hygiene issues. Notices have no meaning but perhaps dog fouling disposal bins would really help. I realise they have to be emptied but I have seen them in other districts. Litter bins are being removed, Especially on Gooseholme in Kendal, there used to be 4, there is now only one, more bins would make it easier for people to dispose of waste properly. Dogs on leads and micro chipped. Persecution; and actual action taken under existing bylaws in built up areas/30mph areas. Put dog wardens on the streets and prosecute people that don’t pick up. There should be more control of the orders applications. Also faeces removed should be properly disposed of. provide bins to put dog litter in and empty them Yes, ensure that people ARE prosecuted and fined heavily. Educate of the dog owners. Many owners do not live where they walk their dogs and do not care/understand how it affects the local people. If owners persist in breaking orders, removal of their dogs to be re homed. more dog wardens with effective powers Local community support projects publish the names of those found committing the offence More rigorous enforcement and stiffer penalties. Continued education and awareness We really need more officers patrolling and more bins-I walk lots but no bins available. Fouling on paths and pavements should be removed. NAME AND SHAME THOSE WHO DO NOT PICK IT UP IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER. Providing more waste bins/plus bags (these should be biodegradable)

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 108

INCREASED PATROLS AND RE-INTRODUCTION OF A DOG LICENCE TO DISCOURAGE IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS. CIRCULATE A LEAFLET SPELLING OUT THE DANGERS POSED TO CHILDREN OF DOG FAECES. We need dog wardens to enforce these laws. Maybe on the spot fines. ALL DOGS SHOULD BE CHIPPED TO IDENTIFY More bins for waste Proactive campaigning, signing and advertising about the importance of responsible dog ownership. Highlight community responsibility and feeling. Having pets and owning dogs is a responsibility that most dog owners take on with great care and seriousness however, the imposition of another set of draconian laws will not change the fouling issue only burden our society with yet more unnecessary bureaucracy. Encouraging more responsibility by owners. More signs. More bins. More police especially in the town centre. Yesterday, July 22nd I saw a man allow his dog to foul the pavement in the Marketplace and fail to clear it up. Awareness campaigns through community groups, neighbourhood forums, schools, churches, libraries etc. 1) Veterinary professional articles/statements/validation within local press, on Parish Council notice boards, agenda content at SLDC and Parish Council meetings that are covered by the local press. 2) additional powers for authorised employees of SLDC - traffic wardens 3) consider photographic evidence from members of the public providing that the time and date can be verified from the image Owners being more responsible, but not sure why they would be More wardens, more fines, more use of cameras (with pics on the internet to ID offenders) in high fouled areas If dogs were micro chipped would it help identify them on cameras? This might be complete fantasy! Ensure that ALL dog owners keep their dogs on the lead whilst on the road and that they do not allow them to run about in driveways when there is no gate / fence to keep them off the road. Regular dog warden/rubbish patrols in parks - why not use volunteers - litter is a real problem too. More dog sanitation bins I always pick up immediately after my dog and also offer bags to those that don't. They tend to pretend they have run out of bags - could you have dispensers for dog "poo" bags (like a slot machine?) Provide more bins as a dog owner myself I pick up but often there is nowhere to dispose of it. Dog wardens employed by SLDC. Special containers plus plastic bags for owner removal of faeces More street signs warning of the penalties. As a dog owner, I'd like to see more dog bins too. If dogs were on a lead at all times outside their own premises owners would see where they left their mess not behind trees or walls. There is an acute need for more bins for dog mess. They need to be positioned at the start and end of all paths crossing public open spaces. This is currently not the case. The specialised bin for mess which is coloured red is the best, as it is easily seen. This bin is widely used in other parts of the UK. Notices requiring dog owners to keep their pets on a lead in all public areas where dog fouling is a problem. Dogs on leads are more easily managed. Owners are often not aware that their dog is fouling when they are running free. more bins in problem areas, - maybe providing a supply of bags to pick up faeces in problem areas would be a better use of money Placement of dog waste bins in several locations to avoid the unsightly plastic bags left along footpaths. BANNING DOGS!! Provide a few more specific bins in certain places - where these are available I have seen owners make more attempts to clear up their dog's mess. More enforcement of the (existing as well as new) rules and penalties - penalty signs are common but I do not know of a single dog owner that has been penalised or fined.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 109

Provide more bins so people can get rid of it. Not enough bins on walks and people don't want to carry it for miles and miles. MORE BINS IS A MUST!! People also need education why dog waste is bad and they must pick it up. Destroy the dog owner - obviously not but it isn't the poor dog's fault is it - we probably need notes through the doors of offenders or something. But it is a very difficult thing to tackle with a neighbour who consistently fails to clean up and has done for some number of years. Stronger enforcement Changing the culture of dog care. Word of mouth. Voting with their feet. More dog bins. Stronger notices. CCTV in worst areas. Community service to clear dog mess. Striking visual poster and media campaign to bring the litter and dog mess to the public's attention Information-more bin provision as at Cartmel Racecourse-provide bags to clean up. Posters people to use common sense, teach to avoid dog mess! Let’s see more people get fined Actually patrol and prosecute using existing by-laws. I have asked to be provided with historic prosecution figures, which I suspect is zero, but have not received a response. If prosecutions and policing are not in place it doesn’t matter how many areas are put under the orders, as they will be ignored. I have never seen dog fouling prevention controllers in our area in the several years we have lived here. Dog licenses should be introduced at a more realistic cost reflecting the seriousness of the problem and promoting responsibility in dog owners, and so raising revenue to support more prevention control. Education of dog owners. Although as it is a minority they probably will not respond to education. Extra publicity and name and shame type campaign in local papers, as recently done in Evening Mail. Flick it off the path campaign for rural areas, as suggested above- it is a natural product that bio- degrades, so why wrap it in plastic and put it in landfill unnecessarily? Leave small area rough ground for 'dog doo'. Dog food manufacturer to sponsor dog warden to help with pet car not just fine everyone. More regular enforcement [PCSO/SLDC] Wardens]visits to the affected areas Provide more bins will help to reduce the problem. more available bins for poo bags, bins have been taken away over the last few years in my area Advertising campaign telling of health hazards, and also showing people how to pick up and dispose of the dog poo As much as I hate to say it, CCTV... More encouragement for those who do know who the culprits are to report them. Signs etc are all well and good but the sort of people who let their dog poo and walk off can most likely read it but they are just ignorant and arrogant and think it does not apply to them! Idiots and arrogance is pretty difficult to tackle. Maybe More poop scoop bins and maybe free bags at various common public places in a dispenser so there's no excuse for people who have 'forgotten' their bag?: More bins should be provided. Some councils also provide bags. We should have stronger enforcement, better policing and private prosecutions if necessary. Stick and flick on lanes not bags. Make guilty dog owners go on poop scoop patrol. Like community service. Yes have all dogs put down, they serve no purpose in society today and are just a nuisance... License and £500 to own a dog. Find the owners, rub their noses in it and fine them heavily. Educate people about health risks for children and encourage respect for others and environment. Please could roadside litter be dealt with in a similar way-fines etc. Name and shame. Stricter "laws" re who owns dog-even education given when dog is acquired. Dog license? Take dogs away from non-caring/irresponsible owners, immediately and make them pay for return of dogs or once put down. Place more bins for dog faeces. Towns should have poo bag dispensers It's usually the social delinquents whose dogs make a mess. So target them. Most normal citizens pick

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 110 it up but still get penalised. Employ more wardens Continuing public education. Re-introduction of the dog licence and the money used to assist enforcement. Take more action, I have never heard of any dog wardens in Cumbria. More bins please. Bigger fines, name and shame, spray paint all dog fouling to highlight the problem. If the owners have been given two warnings, then remove the dog from the owner. Enforcement A heavy fine coupled with naming and shaming - put up a poster on a nearby lamppost or tree with a photo of the offender, their name, when and where the offence was committed and the penalty imposed. Also this information to be placed in a prominent position in the Westmorland Gazette. Come up with a sensible definition of the areas where these rules might be applied. It beggars belief that any sane person can have thought the definition at the head of this page sensible. A dog fouling report line could be set up. With mobile phones incorporating cameras the line could be used not just to report fouling but to receive images of the miscreant. These could then be used to enforce fines. Maybe a three strikes and you are fined policy. There could be more dog poo bins put about. Treat every walker as innocent, rather than the ridiculous use of dog wardens on Milnthorpe playing fields and banning dogs to be on the area at all. Shocking over use of parish power by overzealous councillors. Most, and I mean 99% of dog walkers I know are responsible walkers and support the idea of prosecution of the irresponsible dog owners, but it is tiresome being treated as a criminal as I own a dog. Pathetic counciling and a gross abuse of fund allocation and power. It is also totally unsupported locally. I use the football and cricket club a lot and never hear a positive word of the banning of dogs on the fields, only the mocking of the parish council and another reason of the political apathy that is in abundance. I think once a few people have been fined then others will take notice. Perhaps keep a register of the owners of the offending dogs and have a more severe penalty for, say, 3 occasions in a rolling 12 months Impose even heavier fines. Fit dogs with nappies when in a public place. Plenty of publicity to try to shame offenders and proper enforcement with any fines being publicised Heavy fines and threat of removal of dogs from owners. Public name and shame? Advice and bags available to the public In the countryside and in particular in woodland and on countryside public footpaths I think a "stick and flick" policy is more appropriate, people are more likely to comply because it is easy and also it is more environmentally sound than lots of plastic bags. I have seenother local authorities and bodies like the National Trust who have adopted this policy to great effect. Leigh Woods in Bristol owned by the NT being an excellent example. I have walked there many times and never seen faeces on the paths, just polite signs asking you to stick and flick. More dog bins, especially in cemeteries would be useful; there are only the compost bins in Parkside Rd cemetery which must be nightmare for the grounds men. more public education to encourage responsible behaviour from dog owners More powers to sldc. When it is difficult to identify offenders, the use of CCTV cameras should be considered. More bins empty them move others. 1) Education, education, education 2) Provision of more waste bins, especially in/near recognised fouling hotspots Supply bags on dog walking areas. Supply more bins. As in France, employ poo picker uppers then everyone will be happy. A very strong fine instead of warning. Education.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 111

Authorised/approval name and shame policy for those prosecuted. 1. Punish dog owners who collect dog dirt (in and then leave it on walls, paths, stiles etc. bags). 2. Name and shame guilty dog owners. Provide adequate and easily accessible dog walking areas with dog bins also more available. More patrol by officers needs to done provide more bins particularly in public parks Provide the facilities for dog owners to clean up any deposited mess. Education by poster would assist this process. Control the ownership of dogs. There are plenty of disrespectful and irresponsible owners. More consistent enforcement Stricter penalties and provide bins The best way is through education and making it socially unacceptable and then using peer pressure. However the problem with dog fouling is somewhat generational with older people coming from an era when it was not socially unacceptable and so there is an element of it being a long term issue which time will hopefully address given the education is put in place at school level. Use of responsible dog owner community groups to spread the message within their own communities is also another option. re introduce dog licences. This will reduce the amount of irresponsible dog owners. Make a £2000.00 dog license for private home dogs and increase no's of wardens, but proper working, i.e. farm, blind, guard, police, m/rescue etc. Provide more bins Just continue the campaign to remind people of their responsibilities. MOST people are clean and decent. Don't bring in rules to alienate the majority, but fine those who DO quite heavily. Deaf people should not be exempt from the dog fouling rules. Also, there needs to be some provision for the prompt clean-up of fouling by dogs whose owners are genuinely disabled. Only allow owners to let their dogs defecate in certain places-I know this would be difficult-but dog excrement in places where children play is disgusting and a health hazard. This includes my back alley! 'No dogs' area that is wider than current SLDC areas. Place more bins on regular walking routes and maybe even provide a dispenser with bags. More bins Go back to dog licences for all dogs, at reasonable cost Provide bins for placing "poo bags". Some penalties; more deterrents the ability to carry out fines and prosecutions needs to be refined and clarified then carried out Ramped up fines for repeat owner offenders. Dogs to have a licence Higher fines for multiple offences No exemptions educate and provide more bins Fines have not worked and the difficulty is catching the perpetrators. However, for the few that are caught I feel that naming and shaming the perpetrator via the local media would be more of a deterrent than a fine, but I do agree that a fine should also be issued to help offset administration and other costs. Encourage people-provide bin bags, notices, pictures drawn by school children, cartoons etc or change prom at present. "Your dog cannot read but you can".-except the one on the poo bag! Enclosed. See sample enclosed from Prague. The money you have spent on this could have employed a warden for 12 months to hit target areas. Name and shame dog owners. Enforce the penalties where necessary. Fine people. More officers (enforcement) on beat, tougher penalties for people ignoring laws!! In order for dog owners to dispose of dog faeces conveniently there should be sufficient bins especially in urban centres and promenades visible to dog owning visitors and along known "dog walking circuits". I think there must be but I can’t think how it can be dealt with.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 112

If there was more bins in problem areas at (more spread out) most in/out gates paths etc. Make sure it is implemented. More enforcement officers. Provide more bins for waste to be put in "litter". More enforcement officers. Fouling has been reduced on the gardens on grange promenade by posting notices at appropriate areas. In our street we circle the dog dirt with chalk and write comments on pavement (like "yuk") and this really helped. More dog bins available in dog walking areas. Educate and encourage/not force. I used to live near the coast of Mid Wales where there was a big dog fouling problem on and around the beach. Provision of lots of specific dog waste bins, plus excluding dogs from parts of the beach both worked well. The bins were particularly effective. I have not seen many in Kendal or Windermere where I work. Enforcement of existing laws / bylaws. On my walks I see Local Authority employees and Community Police officers none of whom take any notice of littering, dog fouling, cycling on pavements. If many more Local Authority employees were trained and able to issue fixed penalties for the above offences, and if the Community Police officers actually did anything, more restrictions wouldn't be necessary. A few fines issued would send a clear message to potential offenders. better awareness of the need to worm dogs regularly so that faeces are less likely to contain harmful parasites reward owners who pick up after their dogs by providing more bins so that they don't have to carry bags of poo for miles (something I currently have to do) No dogs on sport grounds. Not too negative approach dogs good, e.g. therapy exercise. Have some bins for dog mess, and maybe some bag dispenser’s as well. Otherwise, the bags of it are chucked into trees etc. Implement the current fines more effectively. Operate a 'three strikes' policy leading to the dog being removed from the owner for multiple offences. Other than catching a dog in the act and an owner ignoring the foul left by the dog there is NOTHING you can do about this problem, if the dog is roaming and not with an owner again there`s NOTHING you can do, rarely do I ever see a dog roaming the streets unaccompanied nowadays. Be very strict, educate dog owners and give stiff penalties immediately not warnings. I do think there is a lack of bins on popular dog walking routes. I know responsible owners do pick up & carry their bags home, and it is by no way an excuse for those that don't pick up...but there does need to be more public bins around-for all types of litter! Bring in a county wide licence scheme and if a dog owner doesn't comply the take the dog off them. The worst thing about dogs is the number of horrible young men whose Staffordshire bull terriers attack my dog when out walking in town. No one seems to bother with this problem and you can bet your bottom dollar that these men do not clear up after their dogs. fines Would it not be possible to allocate a fenced in area of land that dog owners can take their dogs which is big enough to allow the dogs to have a run around and where the dog owner will continue to clean up after their dog and dispose of in bins that are numerous in number so that there is no excuse for not doing so. People without dogs would have no need to go in this area so hopefully would have little to complain about. dog licences name and shame owners Extreme education, enforced on owners caught allowing fouling and failing to deal with it. Along with fines and repeat offenders serious penalties. council to drive round the areas and give out poop scoop bags to dog walkers, also council to provide suitable bins to put dog waste in Provide more dog bins Publish all offenders names and the amount they have been fined. Dog owners should be licensed and if their dogs foul public areas the that license should be

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 113 withdrawn. Reintroduction of licensing of dogs

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 114

Dogs on Leads by Direction Order

Question 8: Do you have any concerns with the Dogs on Leads by Direction Order? 406 comments

Potential cost/difficult to enforce. Possible limited effectiveness. Well behaved dogs should be free to run free in open spaces. However, badly behaved dogs, unpredictable or vicious dogs (vicious to either other dogs or humans) should be restricted to lead walks in public parks. I support the idea of The Dogs on Leads by Direction Order but am concerned that all that will happen is that it will be introduced but not actively be enforced. Knowledge of 'authorised officers of the council' as to what constitutes a nuisance to another person or disturbance of any animal. Perhaps it does not go far enough-persistent offenders should be banned from keeping dogs. Although our dogs are almost always on the lead, this is another case of the few spoiling it for the many. Dogs are companion’s not restricted possessions. New compliance! Draconian most dog owners know how their dogs will react in circumstances and act accordingly Dogs on our estate run around, if they were on a lead they would know where their dog where and tidy up. If they are well trained they should walk with their owner. Who are the people who could tell us to do this? Dogs running free will be excluded from too many places unnecessarily. It is already law that dogs should be kept under control. If the existing law is not enforced, why will another law solve any problem? I, and I'm sure many others, have spent the time to train my dogs to walk close at heel, return to call and ignore livestock - all without the use of a lead. My concern is that such an order will only be followed by the law abiding who are conscientious enough to have well trained dogs, while those who already present a problem and don't comply with the existing law of keeping their dogs under control will continue as before. Enforcement of the existing law should be the way forward, and anyone with a dog out of control and causing a danger/nuisance to people or other animals should be penalised accordingly. Dogs should be kept on a lead at all times. A man from 3 Greengate Lane lets his dogs run free on the streets and playing field the dogs chase any other dogs and scare the children. He has also no control over his Rottweiler or Doberman. As long as direction is reasonable ...... -again how are you going to enforce it-you can’t see or catch all those off lead. I don’t think 2 metres is very far on an extendable lead-responsible people could cope with 5mtrs. Enforcement Again dog owners need to be responsible for their dogs and in turn officers need to understand when it is necessary to have a dog on a lead. Some dogs are happy to stay on footpaths and do not need leads to keep them close. Problems with lack of open areas to exercise dogs off leads, particularly for people with restricted mobility, who may not manage to walk on rough land. Subjectivity - I do not entirely trust officers of the Council to make an appropriate judgement regarding when restraint is reasonably necessary to prevent a nuisance. Extendable leads can cause tripping etc, some dogs better off lead when meeting dogs. Realistically how many authorised officers will be employed and available 24/7. Are you out of your mind this sends the wrong messages out to a rural, tourist reliant economy...... Are you really saying its illegal now to through a ball for your dog. South Lakeland is a RURAL district.... Dog’s walkers come here in their 1000s, to walk the fells, and river walks don’t be daft. Most Dogs are exceptionally well behaved its Irrespective Humans who need education. Dog owners bring

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 115

£1000's into the local economy money would be better spent saying this is a dog friendly district instead of hammering the tourist economy yet again. Many residents have dogs to get them out of the house and they provide exceptions benefits - don’t place unnecessary bureaucracy in the way of personal freedom. Define reasonable. in who's opinion is a nuisance there may be a legal challenge the law of the law generally states that "the dog has to be under close control" and i am not so sure prescribing instructions work only save to inflame dog owners It seems difficult to enforce -- who would be responsible? And would they have the necessary experience of dog behaviour to make the correct decision. Just having a dog on a shorter lead does not necessarily mean that the person will have adequate control over it. If a person can control their dog, i.e. it won't chase livestock, it will walk to heal without a lead then an exception can be made. The main concern is that this order will be the thin end of the wedge and that dogs will ultimately be required to be on a lead whenever in a public area, whether the dog is well trained and behaved or not. Walking in the country and during lambing. Provided a dog is well trained and under the close supervision of its handler there is no reason why these orders should be necessary. They would also restrict the dog’s freedom to be exercised freely. I support authorised officers having the power to require individual dogs to be put on the lead but worried it might be applied to all. I support it on highways/towns I strongly disapprove in parks and open land, because dogs on leads make them more vicious and more likely to fright etc. Experience with 3 dogs on leads trying to bite me. Should not apply on the fields. Control of the dog should be the priority, not solely if it's on a lead. Dogs need 'off lead' exercise somewhere. Dogs need to run and get exercise and if they obey commands this shouldn't be a problem. Is this order going to cost public money and not be policed like no fouling signs already dotted around? It isn't clear why you should need to do this. What's the purpose? Already law in place-dogs must be under control in public places. Under control or on leads-not clear. Would need to know more - for what reason might one be told to put the dog on a lead. I regular walk my dogs along the river and at the castle, the helm etc. without them on leads. It would severely restrict my enjoyment and the dog’s enjoyment if we were no longer allowed to do this. On the other hand, I don't think that people should have their dogs off lead when just walking them down the street. lots of dogs are perfectly well kept and trained, wouldn’t want to impinge on theirs and their owners freedoms Again my concern is that the well trained and good orders are being punished and put at risk of fines because the council fails to use existing legislation effectively As a dog lover I think dogs should be kept under control on a lead except in open country where they cannot be a nuisance to other animals or people. I HATE being bounced by badly controlled Labradors...so does the well-behaved dog I sometimes look after. It is not possible or necessary to have dogs on leads in the Parks but they must be under control. I am currently sporting lacerations to my thigh as a result of a dog off lead approaching and attacking my on-lead dog - so no, I wholeheartedly support it. However, dogs do need a lot of exercise, and for medium and large sized dogs, this involves the need to run around. Could 'dog exercise' areas be created, allowing all dogs to be off lead but where they are safely contained away from people/dogs who don't want to be in the situation where a dog could approach them? If dogs are trained they don’t need a lead in the countryside. Owners have a responsibility and should be punished IF their dog offends. We have had a massive increase in sheep worrying in the last 12 months mainly from people not in control of their dog while out for a walk, often even not aware where the dog is or what it is doing. Dogs have to be free to roam in every area on designated places. What is meant by authorised officer of the council?

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 116

What is meant by "authorised officer of the council?" "When told to do so by an authorised officer of the Council" is inadequate. Clearly stated areas for mandatory leads should be stated Might stop people allowing their dogs to shit in my garden. Dogs should be on leads in public spaces all the time. As an ex dog owner I have been distressed many times by the actions of dogs who've "never done that before, sorry".(& so has my dog) If your dog is too large to exercise on your own land, get a smaller dog! Dogs should not be on leads on promenades such as Arnside, Grange, Ambleside and in cemeteries. Again, how will this be affected? Unless there are many more officers. I'm a regular cyclist commuting through Kendal along the Canal foot/cycle way, and regularly have to take evasive action to avoid dogs being walked off the lead crossing the path. It's not a foot/dog exercise/ cycle path is it, as that seems to be the attitude of most dog walkers using the path between burton road and Parkside road! Some people coming down to the field from Wattsfield Lane do not use a lead this road can be busy with traffic even though it’s a cul-de-sac. There have been times when vehicles have had to stop sharply to avoid dogs not on leads. Yes in some open spaces it is important to have a dog on a lead but to be too prescriptive would be unfair and not allow a dog to have freedom to exercise, provided that the owner is in control. Therefore, I would not support this in all open spaces. It is probably more appropriate in parks where children are playing but very much depends on the dog and owner. Why should my dog suffer and not be able to run around and play just because there are mindless idiots who choose to be irresponsible, if this law is brought in i WILL NOT keep my dog on his lead!!!!!!!!!!!! my dog walks to heel, is highly trained and i won’t have him on a lead unless i think it’s necessary How would you enforce it, I recently complained about local dogs that attacked our dogs and you showed no interest and asked us to tell the police. I feel that what would happen is the responsible owners would comply but those with problem dogs would just carry on regardless. All dogs should be on leads and muzzled at all times unless on owners own property reasonable application It should be used ONLY if dog is out of control, not by officious person for no good reason. Who will enforce it on the ground? L of E. The lack of measures in SLDC to enforce the order. A properly trained dog needs to be allowed to run free occasionally-not everyone has a garden. Dogs always kept on a lead frequently are aggressive to other dogs and people. This could lead to many legal cases and be costly to amenities. National laws should be sufficient. Definition of on lead/under control will be disputed by many owners. Some dogs are better behaved off a lead and become violent and aggressive when put on a lead. Enforcement Again, enforcement. Dogs off leads are of particular nuisance and a potential hazard on Kendal's cycle paths, especially the 'canal path' route from burton road to canal head. Never heard of it before. They should be on leads as there is a dog that runs up to people barking at them (frightening). Wording above is a bit ambiguous and therefore open to misinterpretation. Dogs should be on lead if they are around sheep. It is better to have dog off lead in a field of cows in case the cows charge. Any dog that is behaving aggressively should be on a lead. "Causing a nuisance" is different for everyone. A person who does not like or is afraid of dogs will consider any dog a nuisance. All dogs need to be able to run free at times to get enough exercise and stimulation sensible dog owners keep their dog under control I would not like all public areas and beaches to be banned to dogs simply because of the idiocy of the few just that some dogs are totally under control but cannot see an easy way of allowing for that This response is from Grange-over-Sands Town Council.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 117

We support this in principle. However, in earlier information provided by SLDC, there has not been a huge amount of patrolling by dog wardens. And the consultation says that this situation is unlikely to change. Therefore, we question whether the law will be enforced - and if not, we consider that this weakens any potential law considerably. To what extent will officials receive training to ensure ONLY out of control dog are targeted? Encourage police to enforce existing laws, they do not currently I am concerned that this could be extended to cover any public area at any time preventing responsible dog exercising. Doubt that it will be enforced as there is never an authorised officer about. Again-how is it going to be policed? Needs to be policed correctly. What does a dog under control mean, what is under control by one person does not mean the same/or another. This Order goes too far - a dog has to have exercise off the lead (I believe the RSPCA will not allow anyone to adopt a dog unless they can guarantee this) and it needs to socialise with other dogs. Being kept on short lead will not enable this. As Q5, the field at Grange has no dog fouling prom, so why penalise the major user. It's policing There are areas where they should be able to roam and run free. If the dog is causing a nuisance to people or other dogs, then yes - a good idea. I'd like to be able to exercise my dog in parks etc. I wouldn't like to have my dog on a lead all the time. I have an MSc in companion animal behaviour counselling. Dogs require off lead exercise to maintain emotional and physical homeostasis. Therefore any restriction on off lead access in an area needs to be combined with highlighting where dogs can be let off lead. Note that in areas such as Ambleside dogs cannot be let off lead on the hill areas at lambing time and therefore have to use the parks for example as off lead exercise areas. My own research into the effects of play for my MSc indicates a positive benefit in just 15 minutes of off lead exercise. To restrict off lead access in one area without providing alternative off lead access in another will increase behaviour problems in dogs rather than improve them due to increased frustration and surplus energy that the dog experiences because it is unable to gain the exercise that breeding has bred into the species for 15000 years. Hence a new for clear information where extra off lead access is provided near areas where restrictions are being placed. Dogs need to be on leads for their own safety, in towns, and streets. I do NOT advocate, however, dogs being not allowed 'off lead' on areas of common land, and public footpaths, providing they are under control. Are micro chipped. Ok if used in the spirit it is intended - the danger may be over use or abuse of power of this by some officers Certain areas should have no dogs or always be on leads. Children should be able to play without nuisance of dogs. Needs to be made compulsory Yes it is far too restrictive in the countryside - it is often difficult enough to find somewhere to exercise a dog properly in the countryside let alone in a town - the dogs deserve some consideration themselves. They need to run about, and often people are not fit enough to exercise a dog properly on a lead. Taking a dog for a walk always on the lead is not good enough for the dog. Obviously dogs which cannot be trusted are one thing, and one doesn’t want dogs that constantly cause a nuisance to be allowed to run about anywhere, but..... We exercise our collie each day without using a lead unless he is in built up or unknown area. He has been attacked by other dogs both on and off their leads, so that putting them on leads won't always help. If all dogs were registered then enforcement re attacks etc could be controlled better. Anyone can own a dog, even if they have no understanding of how to control, treat or socialise them, this needs taking on board. I think it would be better to designate more public areas as places where all dogs must be on a lead - rather than waiting for a problem which then has to be dealt with. AREAS OF OPEN ACCESS-LOCAL FELLS How will you police and enforce this effectively? It is unlikely that officers will be available in sufficient

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 118 numbers to make a difference. As a dog owner, I have concerns about restricting off lead access to areas such as Kendal Castle and some parks. It is still important that we should be able to exercise dogs in safe areas, away from traffic and farm animals, off the lead. Dogs should ALWAYS be on a lead they are a nuisance. Some owners ignore requests by parents of young children to put their dog on a lead. Need for more dog areas so that dogs can be properly exercised-to avoid problems. Ruling is too hairy fairy! Dogs should be on leads at all times unless on the fells or areas away from the public. Working dogs e.g. sheep dogs Dogs should be on a lead through all farmland. Responsible owners will always have dogs on leads where ...... , but dogs need to have freedom. As long as this is by an authorised officer and when there is good reason, then I have no objection. Enforcement, particularly in non-specified areas. Should include footpaths/bridleways where dogs are often let off leads and run all over fields disturbing farm stock and wildlife. This could be open to aggressive behaviour from officious people who get great pleasure and a sense of importance from telling people what to do. Some areas that people use regularly to exercise dogs will become areas which become lead only. Making responsible dog owners pay for those irresponsible The "officer" needs to be truly reasonable! It will not be enforced. 'to prevent a nuisance to another person ' could be misinterpreted and used to be to controlling where not necessary Common sense is usually enough without some official getting involved. Police have enough powers. This should be exercised only where people or livestock are seen to be threatened by the individual dog. There should be no blanket orders as such If dogs have to be on leads what about cats on Heron Hill you can see them roaming with no owner in sight. Waste of time, does not appear enforceable...."excuse me, can you put your dog on a lead please" "er why?" "Because it is bothering that old lady" "what’s it to do with you? Are you a police man? REX COME HERE!!!!" dog comes to owner, "see no problem, he comes when called, he just wanted to say hello to her” ..."I am a council representative and I have the power to get you to put REX on the lead" dog owner replies...."and what will you do if I do not? My dog needs off lead exercise otherwise she chews my house to bits, sorry but no, I shall not put her on a lead".....after 20 minutes of arguing, dog owner puts dog on lead. 2 minutes later when council rep is out of sight, dog owner lets dog off lead or just walks the dog somewhere else where there is no rep. Conclusion - dog walker feels bitter and alienated by the council and cannot believe his council tax is going on telling people to put their dogs on leads. The old lady is annoyed because she sees the man release her dog again after the council man has gone. Dogs need to have space in which to exercise of off-lead. Both for exercise and to socialise with other dogs. Simply banning dogs from being off-lead will A) focus pressure and the issue of dog fouling onto other areas B) be to the detriment of law-abiding dog owners and C) do little for personal safety. It will do little to reduce incidents of dog-biting from strays or dogs left to wander nor restrict dog fouling. 1. It has nothing to do with the Clean Streets campaign. 2. The report to Cabinet did not offer one word of justification for this new law. 3. The authorised officers are not adequately trained or experienced in dog handling. Living in Bowness and owning a large dog which needs lots of exercise, means I would have concerns about the possibility of always having to have my dog on a lead. Exactly who is going to have the 'power' to inflict these rules? Where are these authorised people going to be? As a dog owner myself I think it is reasonable to require all dogs to be kept on a lead of up to 2m at all times when in public places. This will prevent dogs from being aggressive towards other people and other dogs, chasing farm animals, and the owner from avoiding dealing with dog fouling that they 'don't see'. To deal with the people who disagree with this, perhaps it would be possible to designate a specific piece of land in each district as

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 119 a dog play area for free running, with a charge for entry. The charge could cover the cost of a poo bag dispenser and bins and emptying them. A licence fee could also help cover the cost. Perhaps farmers could be paid to provide a piece of suitable land. I am in agreement for children's play areas, but we often let our dog off for a run in the local church yard (clean up after if needed), also walk him in Ford Park. I think asking to put a dog on a lead in all areas of land in South Lakeland open to the air and where the public have access (with or without payment), other than those areas covered by the Dogs on Leads Order or the Dogs Exclusion Order is unreasonable not to mention a health risk to the dog if they don't get enough exercise. It would be nice if Ford Park could provide an area to tie dogs up near the play area so we could at least take both children and dogs out at the same time! Certainly not in agreement if it's areas of common land (with the exception of lambing season), access land, beaches and open countryside, again provide more bins rather than excluding dogs. I am worried it will be used inappropriately or by people who are not authorized acting as though they are. Again, difficult to enforce as there is rarely an authorised officer present to do so When on paved areas all dogs should be on a short lead not just when an "authorised officer" says so. Long leads are a hazard and a nuisance on pavements. Intimidating dogs roaming several yards from the owner can be distressing for small children. Also the owner cannot safely control a dog at that length and the dog can run in to road causing an accident. Extending leads should only be used on open land such as fields or parks. Enforcement-How? Regs already in place for dog control but no one to enforce them. Dogs need open space to exercise and run. Is enforcement to be at whim of council officers? I like my dog to have a run around when out for a walk but I am still in control of him as he comes back to call. A dog is either on a lead or not. Does do like to socialise and a lead will curtail this. How is the authorised officer of the council to be identified? Will they wear a uniform? Dogs need to be off the lead at times to burn off energy. I understand if there is livestock around but not for another reason Very important to implement I have a problem in my locality with a dangerous dog that is allowed off the lead and attacks other dogs mainly on open fells. I am concerned that an official will see this dog chasing my dog and tell us both to put the dog on the lead when mine has done nothing wrong. Do I and the other dog owner then have to keep the dogs on the lead whenever we're in that locality or just on the occasion when the officer sees us? Even where dogs are already required to be on a lead (Cockshott Point, Bowness on Windermere) they do not do so, I have seen a Rottweiler, two Dobermans and numerous other dogs off leads in that area even though there are signs at both entrances requesting that people keep their dogs on leads. Dogs do need to have a bit of run space. I have worked very hard (and continue to do so) with my guy so that he can have run free time in the park - after being on lead in the town. We must keep some run free space for the dogs I think this should only apply to areas where dogs are required to be on a lead. It is very difficult and subjective for someone who does not know a dog to decide whether it needs to be on a lead. In general most dog owners know their dogs well enough to know when they should and shouldn't be on a lead and I don't think this is a major issue. Dogs need exercise. Without it can create behavioural problems. The problem with most dogs lays with the owner not the dog. Better education about dog ownership is important. What defines an "authorised officer", the judgement as to "reasonable" is subjective, and could be misused. This could lead to more and more restrictions on where people can walk their dogs freely in the future. I agree that all dogs should be on leads when walking on roads, but to restrict people to walking them on leads in other places is worrying. I do agree that people who own troublesome dogs should be more responsible and keep their dogs on leads more often than perhaps they do now. Misuse of the order. Some dogs are better behaved off lead and under tight control by their owners.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 120

Dogs need to be able to run (all be it under control) and as long as it is recognised that this only applies when dogs are causing a nuisance then fine. This is a highly emotive subject, bound to cause friction between dog owners and those who just don't like dogs. Tourism is a much valued source of income to the ; there is no doubt that it would be irreparably damaged by such an order. A large percentage of visitors and residents enjoy dog ownership and part of the pleasure is in seeing their dogs run free. To keep a dog on a lead would be cruel and unworkable. It would almost certainly result in many more cases of frustration and aggression. Dogs need good exercise regularly to maintain health, both mental and physical. How do you propose to enforce this rule on hunting dogs/hounds, which are the most unruly and damaging of all our canine friends ? There would certainly be anarchy if these killing machines were excluded from your ill-thought out proposal. Agree that dogs should not be a public nuisance (aren't there already laws to cover this?) Difference between dogs who routinely harass/attack other dogs and should be restrained and those who have a 'one off' exchange. Most dogs sort out their differences better off the lead when they feel they can escape. Normal etiquette of putting one's dog on lead when meeting another who is on lead seems to work. Would 'moussing' constitute 'disturbance to any animal'? Any plans to stop cats disturbing birds? (Joking) not needed Responsible owners are being punished. Dogs can be under control when not on a lead. Yes - it's a cheap fix for you to pacify the tax payer - a bit of dog shit, so you put up a few signs saying dogs not allowed and hell loads of publicity what a great council listening to the concerns of the tax payers. Well you should be focusing on the slashing cuts to elderly and disabled services See last sentence in order paragraph. That there is nowhere left for a walk without lead. There should be some areas set aside for dogs to be allowed off leads. Main concern is how to enforce it. There are so many people who let their dogs off leads which cause a nuisance that it will be hard to control. SLDC ability and desire to enforce such an order. See attached letter. Enforcement of order will be a problem. Implementation. There needs to be give and take, as the "dog" issue can be a very emotional thing, particularly for the elderly. What determines the need for a dog to be on a lead? I am tired of people whose dogs leap up on me and others that their dog is "friendly", "wouldn’t harm anyone". I’ve seen the results. Should only be a requirement in towns and on roads. Again you’re discriminating against responsible owners and their dogs. Does this mean dogs should be kept on a lead when walking on the fells? If so, this is ridiculous. Who is going to abide by this rule? If you're suggesting local footpaths again, I don't agree. I would suggest naming and shaming all those who drop litter and fail to pick up any mess. Don't just localise to dog mess. There are plenty of local residents who would love to name and shame and keep their area tidy. It is unfair to responsible dog owners. Again - how would it be enforced? People with dogs often put the extendable lead on, but then do not lock it or allow the lead to become a danger to others. Many dogs are trained correctly by their owners, who are also aware that cleaning up after their dog is important. The message needs to be strong. No half measures! Should be on a lead at all times in public place. Malicious officers could cause problems for farmers with working dogs. Extending leads are useless and should be banned full stop. Do SLDC have the manpower to enforce? Could be imposed with too heavy a hand.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 121

More bureaucracy opens to abuse. Only when dog is not under proper control many have complete control by words. How would you enforce the order? What proof is required? I agree in principle but I think it is open to abuse. In my old home-town, the 'on the lead' restrictions started just as this order recommends but in a short space of time it restricted dogs so they weren't allowed off leads at all, even on the beach or in the parks. Its one of the reasons I moved from the area. No concerns. All dogs in public places must be on a lead. Depends on owner control-some are very well controlled by words I don't think that any dog should be made to stay on a lead the whole time whilst on a walk, it's not natural for the dog. Authorised officers should have fair protocols to follow, not be 'jobsworths'. Dogs are restricted enough in this area due to livestock Dogs by their nature need some opportunities to run free and to restrict these will mean more people letting their dogs off leads near to sheep grazing with the well-known sad results. I have heard that in the centre of Toronto there is a dedicated park just for allowing dogs to roam free where there are sufficient bins. The area even has a segregated area to keep small dogs separate from large dogs. To have such a dedicated zone in towns would help. Some dogs need muzzles as well and if a dog is aggressive the owners should be ordered to muzzle them when out in public areas. RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS BEING PENALISED FOR UNRESPONSIBLE ONES. Running loose in field Who's going to enforce it? Over stretched police? Overzealous authorised officers. This imposition will alienate responsible dog owners. You cannot legislate for irresponsible behaviour-it has to be dealt with on a person/person basis. Penalising ALL dog owners. Dogs need to enjoy a good run in parks/public spaces. There are dogs and dogs. Some dogs are more of an obvious risk than others. Discretion must be applied. Some dogs don't need to be on leads as they are under control and are supervised by responsible owners. This is ridiculous. How on earth can this be done? If I am on the fells and my dog is not on a lead who decides it is being a nuisance? Or is big brother watching. Dog owners in Ulverston are 98% reliable and use common sense in their actions with their and other people's dogs. Interference from an ignorant (meaning without detailed knowledge obtained by daily contact with dog owners) will back -fire by alienating a very responsible section of our local society. Please find something else to do. We're doing fine without your involvement. All dogs should be on a lead in public places. Asking the owner to put his/her dog on a lead implies that it is O.K. for the animal to run loose where -ever and whenever they wish. Too draconian. Not clear what type of situation would prompt a request to put a dog on a lead. No problem with the order, but concerns of the council jobsworthy's in some cases! The person ordering the order must be identifiable and be able to exercise a high level of common sense Human Rights Act My dog has been trained to work without a lead and will stop at roads, not cross without direction given etc. I do not think that owners who cannot control their dogs would let them off their leads in case they run off. The only dogs I come across who are not on a lead are completely under control and have never seen a dog off the lead be any kind of a problem to the public. I have never been aware of a dog off a lead being the cause of any accident etc and just wish the non-dog owners would find something else to complain about, causing a fuss about nothing and leave the dog owners alone. We are a soft target for non-dog owners and councillors alike

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 122

Possible "enforcement" by unauthorised jobsworths with a grudge. This must be policed sensibly Enforcement difficulties I fully agree that dogs must be kept on leads where there is livestock, or near playing areas. Possibly also in the Park in Grange. I disagree with having to keep dogs on leads where they could, in all fairness, be allowed to run- e.g. the Prom at Grange. Owners who do not clear up after dogs, will not suddenly start to do so just because their dog is on a lead. If such an Order is introduced, then cannot specified areas be designated where it would be possible to let your dog run? e.g. the top end of the Playing Fields at Grange, towards Kents Bank Road could be fenced off so that dogs would not run onto the children's play area. If done fairly. If a dog is under control off a lead, why should it be put on a lead? All dogs need time off a lead in the open air to run and let off steam, where are they supposed to do this if they have to be on a lead all the time? Dogs should be kept under control within a built up area; let’s say an area with in the road lighting system. They should be allowed to roam free, under correct supervision, when in open land. Number of authorised officers? Interpretation of the power of the officer open to dispute. Taking away free will and liberty Again who enforces this at that moment and who defines a dog as "being a nuisance"?? One of the joys of the Lakes is being able to exercise your dog off lead on the fells and in other open spaces. I would only support a requirement for dogs to be kept on lead where the dog is wildly out of control or a danger to others/livestock. Most family pets are perfectly harmless off lead. I'm a dog lover and as long as dog is behaving friendly and socially I don't have a problem with them being off lead it's the fouling and not being picked up by owner I'm concerned with. Who are these "authorised officers of the council" going to be? How will they be identified? I agree with the final line in 2 above.... (As follows).... The power to direct a dog to be put on a lead can only be exercised if such restraint is reasonably necessary to prevent a nuisance to another person or to prevent the disturbance on any animal. Will it be enforced in practice? Dogs should be under control but this does not necessarily require a lead. The manpower resources available to the Council mean that this measure is likely to be of limited effect. These powers will need to be adequately enforced. On two occasions in the last year, I have been startled by a large dog running past me on Highgate. I was not physically harmed, but it was a shock - I don't think this is appropriate in a street. Keeping a dog on a lead leads to aggression as dogs on leads are protective. This will not solve the problem as the same owners who didn't pick it up before still won't!! Must only be used if dog causing a nuisance as said above. My dog needs to be off lead to enable her to get enough exercise, but we are careful where we do this. Needs to be sensible-sometimes areas/fields say dog on lead but no stock, wildlife etc. to disturb or public to upset. All land not used by traffic should be available to well controlled dogs. d) Could misinterpret by authorities. Dogs need to be able to play together and to run free where it is safe to do so. That provides enjoyment for the owners as well. Long leads are not much use on roads/pavements I'm very concerned because of the reasons already mentioned. I think there should be much tougher rules for certain areas (as already stated) but i really think the ideas are going too far. I think it’s very important that the new laws be supported by responsible dog owners and punishing us in this way will not invite support. Authorised officer of the council? Yet another jobsworth. The council wastes enough of our money already. How will they know who is an authorised officer? National park authority staff seem to be more concerned about upsetting dog owners than dogs attacking sheep!

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 123

Need to be very clear when it can be exercised as not all loose dogs are a nuisance. Very difficult to know where exclusion order areas are. Too many dogs are not on leads IT'S A JOB FOR THE POLICE-NOT COUNCIL STAFF I feel that public places in general are places dogs should be kept on leads. However, there does need to be places dog owners can go to exercise off lead. Making the whole of the area un-dog friendly is not going to help anyone. Not all dogs need to be on a lead! At the times dogs are exercised off the lead near where I live there is nobody else around, that is early in the morning and late in the evening. An ad hoc shift system for policing would need to be used to address the issue. This all depends on the obedience of the dog. My father’s dog is a gun dog and does not require a lead (walks to heal without a lead and doesn't approach people or animals). Such an order should only be given if the dog is out of control with a person/animal causing a threat or trespassing on peoples land. With regard to "Clean Streets", whether the dog is on a lead or not will make no difference to a dog owner who is determined not to pick up his dog's poo. I think dogs should be on leads if they are unsafe or pose a risk to anyone or another animal such as sheep. I do feel that all restrictions are in danger of being used unnecessarily. This is totally un-necessary. There are laws covering out of control dogs, I fail to see what this would achieve other than penalising responsible people with well trained dogs. Who will be policing the people who can give these orders? 2 metres seems too long for a presumably out of control animal, because leads present quite a tripping hazard for other pedestrians and cyclists in crowded or relatively busy locations, and presumably a dog subject to this order would fall into both these categories/situations, in most cases. The last sentence above needs elaseration to ensure officers exercise proper restraint. The powers need exercising with restraint and common sense. It is becoming increasingly difficult to exercise a dog off a lead. Not sure how enforceable it is. It would rely on an authorised officer been present. Also how would 'nuisance' be defined? What would be one person’s nuisance would not be somebody else's. Also a dog does not have to be on a lead to be under control, just as many people have dogs on leads which are out of control Again without the resources to enforce such an order it will be a complete waste of time and effort. Considerate and responsible dog owners do not require an order to behave sensibly. The existence of a direction order will make no difference whatsoever to the behaviour of the rest. Obedient dogs do not need leads. Dogs should remain on leads in all public areas at all times with the exception of a few specially designated areas where dogs may be released providing they do not cause a nuisance. Most people who own dogs are responsible people. How you train the minority takes time and persistence. Small on the spot fines might work. Owners who let their dogs off leads once away from main road area! and leave their dog bags at rear of our lane. If members of the public have undertaken to report a troublesome dog that dog should be on a lead in public areas. This would be ineffective if not followed up. I.e. monitored. Dogs have a right to run free, It is only the fouling that is a problem. It should not be used by authorised officers and/or police to restrict the freedom to exercise dogs in open country without there being particular hazards to health and safety of public and/livestock. Unlikely to be properly enforced. Not properly thought through. Who will authorise this direction order? Over use of this direction when not really necessary. Dogs need exercise. Verbal abuse from dog owners If the order is used to get out of control dogs under control then it is good, but it is easily abused. a dog

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 124 under control at heel or involved in play with its owner does not need to be on a lead. Cannot answer fully until I know what "authorised officer of the council" exactly means, what his/her remit will be, what training they will have, what powers of enforcement they will have, what sanctions will be open to them etc. A lead should be no more than 1 meter long. Not these extending ones. Ban leads which extend more than 2m. Extendable leads can be dangerous if fully extended. Prosecutions to make the order effective. Very dependent on performance of council officer. The authorised officers should be fair and reasonable, and not 'anti-dogs'. That resources will not be available to make this a useful measure. Dogs should be under the control of their owners at all times, this does not necessarily mean that they have to be on a lead. Places should be provided where dogs can be freely exercised with easy access. Can’t imagine when it would be needed in Grange, but maybe other areas need it. Where are the authorised officers who will enforce the rules? not needed In general the kind of people who are freely allowing their dog to foul in inappropriate areas won't be more inclined to clean up after their animal just because it's on a lead!! Also, please be wary of chasing tourist trade away. A lot of dog owners come to the area as tourists. If restrictions are seen as too strict or far reaching, they will take their trade to other areas who use a less restrictive approach to dog fouling. Dogs on leads are more likely to be aggressive to one another, as they have no means of escape from confrontation. If they are under the owner's control off lead, then there is no problem. Out of control, rampaging dogs with no recall should be on leads. How is it enforced? simply making an order does not guarantee compliance Dogs should be on leads at all times when in public areas not just when told to do so. It needs to be only used where/when absolutely necessary so that it cannot legitimately create resentment Authorised officers cannot be everywhere so simple rules about dog control should apply everywhere. Officials would require training to an appropriate standard and not simply be anti-dog. This might be miss-interpreted. Bike rides are not in control of their dog if no lead. As Q.5. Funding? As above-enforcement Not sure if it will work in practice Enforcement If on a lead there would not be a problem. Questionnaire does not say where or how this works - i.e. can I be told anywhere outside to put my dog on a lead by an official and if I don't that I will be fined? It will become general and apply to all dogs whether local reasonably behaved dogs or not. People with badly behaved dogs have to have them on a lead in any case because they run away. Nearly all dogs off lead are reasonably behaved as their owners take pride and have trained them. If all dogs are on lead they will never get trained and could go on to be badly behaved including chasing sheep. Dogs need exercise to be well adjusted and we will be forced to use our cars 3 or 4 times a day to take them out of town. This will lead to even more fouling of public footpaths as there will be even fewer people around to see them. It will not encourage responsible dog ownership If it 'applies to all areas of land in S Lakeland open to the air and where the public have access' then that includes countryside walking. The above definition is far too restrictive. Just because a dog is on a lead, does not stop aggression. A dog well trained and off a lead is acceptable. As before, are there sufficient enforcement officers to make this effective Who will be these authorised officers of the council? How many of them will there be? How will they

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 125 identify themselves? My suspicion is that this will lead to some people taking it upon themselves to act as such officers, thus causing aggravation or disorder. I cannot see that, in the current economic climate, the council has any spare money for employing these officers. So passing such an order is a pointless exercise which will only antagonize a section of the community. Dogs should be on leads (< 2m) in all streets and public rights of way. Many owners are not in close control of their dogs and long leads are positively dangerous, as they can get tangled with the legs of passers-by or, worse, cyclists. It may be used when a dog off a lead is not presenting a nuisance to a person or disturbance to an animal. Farmers and land owners would prevent any dog walking in most areas. Britain is a nation of dog lovers and owners, if you don’t like it, move! Failure to enforce especially at unsocial hours. It is open to abuse, in that there is a degree of subjectivity in whether or not a dog is being a nuisance. Again it is the enforcement of such an order and the possible costs involved The information provided does not detail who would be an 'authorised officer'. I would like an 'authorised officer' to be restricted to a uniformed police officer, police community support officer, special constable or uniformed dog warden/park keeper. Dogs need to exercise. You are restricting this exercise. Why not just ban people from owning dogs in South Lakeland. This is unnecessary and will cause difficulties for owners who cannot access areas where dogs can be allowed off the lead. Particular concern is Grange promenade and Playing fields, where dogs can exercise freely and don't appear to cause problems. Most owners pick up after their dogs and there is rarely a problem of dog mess. It has been suggested that 'Dogs on leads order' should be imposed on Grange promenade. I think this would be great shame for the many elderly people who exercise their dogs and themselves on this area. It would do nothing to avoid dog fouling. Likewise many other open areas should not have an order. This would be more draconian than the CROW Act 2000 provisions. Dogs should be 'under control' not necessarily on leads It will be cruel to dear little dogs. Dogs on leads is all well and good but the person at the other end of the lead must still be able to control it, My dog has been attacked twice by dogs on leads, the owners could not keep hold of the other end or the dog just pulled them straight over. There will be no supervision. or very little, of the implementation of the orders (due to lack of staff) and if a member of the general public objects and asks someone to put their dog on a lead they might be met with aggression or a vicious dog set on them. If such situations as dogs disturbing animals or people occur it is not logical to wait for an authorised officer of the council to appear to stop it. People who cannot walk dogs often use public areas for ball throwing etc. why prevent responsible dog owners doing so for a minority. The last sentence above needs elaseration, to ensure officers exercise proper restraint. Vast majority of dog owners are responsible yet everyone is affected Again, will there be enough officers to enforce this? Visitors to Lake District: Dogs well trained by their owners get GREAT pleasure from expressing dog off leads etc. I have an extremely well behaved dog and believe she should be allowed to run where possible. Likelihood of unsympathetic attitude and lack of understanding of dog behaviour by officers. Responsible dog owners must be able to exercise their dogs off lead, in areas of common land etc. SEARCH AND RESCUE DOGS SHOULD OBVIOUSLY BE EXEMPT. What would be the criteria for the authorised officer to tell dog owners to lease their dogs? I agree that some dogs do require constant restraint and could pose a threat to humans and other dogs but the majority of dogs pose no threat and require a certain amount of freedom to exercise and play. Dogs on leads are sometimes more aggressive Dog owners should be in control of their dogs and be relied upon to put them on a lead if and when necessary, not enforced to do so.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 126

Do people understand what this Dogs on Leads by Direction Order Mean? 1) Some dogs are under complete control of their owners if trained correctly to walk at heel. When i owned a dog, it was under total control off a lead. 2) Walking an aggressive dog on a lead does not equate to it being under control. A dog owned by a relative was severely bitten by an aggressive dog also on a lead, despite my relative keeping it on a short length of lead. 3) The have been more cases of injuries to dog walkers in the countryside keeping their dogs on a lead when walking through fields where suckler cows with calves at foot are kept than through any other form of activity. Remember what happened at Crook several years ago, an experience that has been repeated countless times since in other parts of the country. Indeed, a group of solicitors interested in rural life and its problems have been looking at this issue. If I were asked to provide evidence on such a case, and a local authority had enforced such a by-law on a dog walker so that he/she was injured, I would support taking that local authority to court. Dog owners should be made to keep their dogs under effective control relative to the location of the area and not a broad-based general principle that has little logic behind it. As long as this is not used to reduce the number of places that responsible dog owners can walk their dogs off the lead. Interpretation by officers of 'is reasonably necessary to prevent a nuisance to another person or to prevent the disturbance of any animal' can be problematic. 'Told to do so by an authorised officer of the council' is also vague - is this only verbal instruction, or by signs covering a blanket area? Unenforceable without regular patrols Why not have separate areas for exercising dogs and ban them from everywhere else unless on a short lead Dogs have a need to be off the lead at times, I worry that Dog Owners would be asked to put Dogs on a lead when no one is being disturbed and the dog is not being a nuisance. There are other more anti- social problems in South Lakes apart from Dogs of Leads. Most dog owners are responsible. I own a dog and am a very responsible owner. I have my dog on a lead when it is necessary to do so and feel I can make a responsible decision. Dogs are always a nuisance when they are allowed freedom to run wild. To properly exercise and to train for obedience dogs need to be off lead. Therefore an order for dogs to be on a lead should only be applied in particular public areas where it is considered to be necessary. It all depends on the dog. Some are very well behaved and better for being off the lead. I have concerns about this being used in too draconian a way. I would like to see more information about how and when this could be enforced. Again, how to enforce. the same dog which causes the fouling is allowed to wander the streets and as she gets older she wanders more and more with NO LEAD OR CONTACT NUMBER - the owner gets aggressive if tackled on this and says she is chipped but that only works if the dog is taken to the vet to find out - hard for another neighbour or passer-by to return her to her home People with no gardens at all should not be allowed to have pets - that is the essence of this problem - a terrace house attached to mine with no land and only on foot access over my yard. And guess where the crap goes - yes on the road. Interpretation of "nuisance to another person" - needs careful and detailed clarification because some adults have an irrational dislike of dogs. ENFORCEMENT. Punishing majority for minority behaviour. How policed Not all dog owners are irresponsible, general public regard dog owners poorly. My concern is that this may be the thin edge of the wedge, and once implemented will be extended to cover many areas where dogs are exercised. There will be no check in place to stop this as SLDC ignore public wishes (See New Road Car Park) anyway, and only carry out public consultation because they need to be able to be seen to do so. As above, it is only the minority.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 127

I would support this order if it is used only as explained above to control a nuisance or dangerous dog, but not if it is over used or thought of as a means of keeping the area clean, as being on a lead will not prevent a dog relieving itself if it needs to. Cleaning up is the issue of this consultation, not dangerous dogs. Are you implying that dogs have to be on a lead at all times when away from home. Dogs need exercise they need to run, how can they do this if constantly on a lead, Surely this would be cruel. Our dog loves to swim in the rivers and lakes - will this be prohibited as well. This appears to be an overkill based upon a few irresponsible owners. What are the chances of an officer being there when an incident occurs! Is this practically enforceable. What is reasonably necessary? If a dog is off a lead near a person who is scared of dogs, would they be allowed to complain and the owner be forced to put the dog back on a lead? Dogs on leads are more likely to fight with one another than dogs off lead Well, again, only that it is a bit of a pot luck being in the right place, right time to enforce it. I walk regularly in Kirkby Lonsdale and round Milnthorpe with my mum's dog, on a lead, and there are numerous dogs who are not and who cause a nuisance by bounding over and shaking their soggy sleeves all over us or jumping at our dog but I've never seen an enforcement officer. I suppose the more doggy patrol people there are the more it will cost, or will it be like traffic wardens - handing out a lot more tickets to pay for it? Might be a good idea in this instance. Maybe give traffic wardens the right to hand out tickets too if they see a poo not scooped?! It may be OK in a park but dogs need to exercise off the lead. Some people are paranoid about dogs. It will increase the council tax as more staff will have to be employed if meaningful enforcement is to be considered. Also how do dog owners know which land is OK. Are we to more signs and clutter to add to the amount that we already have? A well trained dog is not a problem. This order is meant for a very small minority of people and is an expensive exercise to satisfy the few. We do not need any more laws that are not enforced. I have seen dogs on leads still fouling and owners leaving mess behind. In Leather Lane, Ulverston. All dogs should be on a lead including Rottweiler’s in Ulverston. I have a right to allow my dog to roam, as parents have a right to allow their kids to roam. Stop dogs? Then stop kids. They make more of a mess!! Think a longer lead could be allowed. In general, why on earth do dogs other than guide dogs need to be taken into cemeteries, surely exclusion is more appropriate? In Grange shouldn't "on lead" policy be extended to the Ornamental Gardens and why isn't the Community Orchard to be protected at all - this is an area in which the public are INVITED to eat the apples where dogs have been "exercised”. I trust neither the common sense nor knowledge of all the authorised officers of the council to execute this order responsibly. Possible ambiguity in respect of variable length dog leads I think dogs should be able to run free, while out walking, owners should know where and when to let their dogs off a lead. Whatever next? Who on earth comes up with these? Everyone should be allowed to enjoy the public spaces and dogs like to run around. If they aren't being a nuisance then putting them on a lead is exercising control over their owners. Need to recognise that some people will regard this as an attack on liberty Can it be enforced effectively? All dogs are different and their owners seem to assume that they are friendly. To a non-dog owner this is not always how they view a free ranging dog heading towards them. Only that it may not be backed up and supported once in place. Only that I can't think for a second who you are going to get to do this as I have never in my life seen a dog warden in Kendal. It will be too difficult to enforce - authorised officers would have to be 'called out' and this would take too long to be effective Abuse of power!

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 128

Why should the many suffer for the few? Dogs need to be under control at all times but not necessary on a lead-lots of dogs walk to heel when told. On the pavement-or prom- on leads on field off but done under control. Dogs need to run free for play and exercise. Wrong to be restricted by a lead Enforcement? Exact measuring of lead? Insufficient authorised officers to enforce consistently. Who will enforce these orders? Dog haters will invent or exaggerate problems. This will restrict the freedom of running around that most people's dogs enjoy at the moment Seems very vague and therefore unenforceable is the order specific to the dog or an area? Is the authority employing a person or persons to cover the whole of the South Lakeland area? If not, it is not worthwhile and if they have to cover the whole South Lakeland area is this possible? A dog on a lead is just as likely to need to relieve itself and if held tightly will not go into the undergrowth as is a natural instinct. Dog training is much better. And if owners do not have a well- trained dog by the time that dog is about 2 years old, the owners need to get themselves to training classes. Many owners are just idle and poorly educated. Concerned it will not be policed Once again competency of the authorised officers to judge what is "causing a nuisance" as has been shown elsewhere in the country. Officers must have strict guidelines that are adhered to and uniformly applied and not be left to make their own decisions. For example, we see instances of officers spotting a dog off lead - doing nothing to cause a nuisance, perhaps playing with a ball, and the officer deciding that because it is off lead it MIGHT cause a nuisance and therefore requesting the dog be leashed. This is not sufficient grounds. The grounds must be sufficient, i.e. the dog running persistently into family groups, pursuing or harassing wildlife etc, but not just for the fact it is off lead per se. Dogs should be on leads at all times (with the exception of designated areas where leads are not mandatory) Make it a law all dogs on leads in public places and some breeds muzzled. Many dogs are fine off their lead. These owners and their dogs should not be penalised because of those who cannot control their dog. Dogs do not always obey, that is true, but dogs are an integral part of British life and to be well behaved they also need to exercise freely by running. If the dog then does damage then the owner should be fined. Who will confirm if a dog is out of control? Surely this must be "matter of opinion" and not enforceable. i find it unacceptable that people are being confined by people with little or no training in upholding the law. Also that tax paying people are being told what the can and cannot do because some do not like it. Who are the authorised officers and how many of them are there? People will have to be prepared to report dog and owner and know how to contact officers, since there will rarely be an officer present when a nuisance takes place. too much leeway for overenthusiastic staff Ok on prom before 8am? But necessary near children’s play area. Again enforcement is costly. All dogs should be on leads in public areas. Dogs need space do run around. Dog owners who have actually researched dog behaviour will be able to control their dog regardless of a lead, but as many people do not bother to research dog behaviour and psychology before owning a dog I suspect this coverall order is probably the best solution. Enforcement-as above. Misuse of power, lack of freedom for dogs to exercise in appropriate areas. It might result in it being impossible for a responsible owner to exercise their dog off the lead. I don't understand the point of this, to be honest most people will put their dogs on leads if they are concerned that they will cause trouble - the irresponsible minority probably wouldn't do so whoever was asking them to and probably wouldn't hang around to be told what to do either

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 129

The ruling is too vague. Responsible owners will obey signs requiring their dogs to be on leads around animals. Accurate and adequate signposting of these areas is usually put in place by the landowners/farmers. Dogs need to be exercised off lead in order to satisfy their natural instincts. Energetic dogs that spend all their lives under lead restraint can become aggressive when they meet other dogs, often acting protectively towards their owners. Would rather depend on the officer directing the order would smaller dogs be ok off the lead and would the officer only "target" larger breed dogs. If dogs are well controlled there is no need for this order, dogs do need a run. Only in the sense that the dogs may end up not receiving the exercise they need in order to keep fit and healthy. meaningless and ineffective when such wide areas mean enforcement is minimal One man's nuisance...?

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 130

Dog Exclusion Order

Question 10: Do you have any concerns with the Dog Exclusion Order? 427 comments

If you have a small child and a dog, exclusion orders would make it difficult to take them both out together to playgrounds etc. See no problem as long as your dog was well behaved and friendly. I support the idea of The Dog Exclusion Order but am concerned that all that will happen is that it will be introduced but not actively be enforced. Public awareness and strict enforcement must be applied Far too draconian-Council should have other priorities. Too general Areas where dogs are NOT excluded need to be advertised. There are green areas in Kendal suitable for both dogs running free AND children playing. In certain areas will prove difficult if there is no other area to walk your dog A sensible dog owner would ensure their dog had "performed" before entering any of the suggested exclusion zones and cleaned up after it. It will make it difficult for families with dogs to visit playgrounds. Adults and children and also grass cutters do want to be forever looking down to see if the ground is clean. It depends on where it is. Dog clubs use sport grounds for events. If sports grounds not available for responsible owners would get far more dogs/owners on narrow country lanes. I don't necessarily support the exclusion from sports pitches. These can be areas that many dog owners, especially elderly people who cannot walk far from home, walk regularly (maybe two or three times a day). They can be a significant part of that open area which would limit people's walking areas. Personally I see little evidence of dog mess on sports fields in my area. Could they not be left available but put up large signs to tell people more obviously to clean up after their dogs. And provide more bins. I really feel they are used more by dog walkers than they ever are by sports. The area in Rothay Park in Ambleside you show would need to be fenced off. Dogs could be excluded automatically and unnecessarily No concerns as long as the areas are those mentioned above, and not extended to other areas without consultation. as long as this does not apply to open countryside Think they should be allowed around the outskirts of sports pitches-you're discriminating against dog owners. Again other than a guide dog I think you shouldn’t own a dog if you can’t pick up dog poo. Enforcement I am not sure if this means dogs would be excluded from other areas other than ones stated but if it does there should be a good reason and again it comes down to ensuring dog owners act responsibly and respect the purpose of the land. I think this would be abused by land owners. Significant areas of land that have long been used by responsible dog owners with no nuisance to other users become 'out of bounds' under DEOs. Guide dogs etc should not be excluded. A plan should be in place to cover this. Over...... People refusing access to dogs required to assist disabled. Controlled areas must be clearly signed. Ill conceived, no thought has gone into choosing and defining these areas. Many of these areas may contain a children’s play area, or an old playing field but the wider area is recreational area for the use of all the community including those that own and exercise Dogs. Many of these areas form the only recreational space in an urban area and it is appropriate to utilise them for man’s best friend as well as other forms of play. where are all these enforcement officers coming from council tax increases oh you will be popular and

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 131 i think you have major issues with Gov. cuts Should if possible have notices explaining reasons for the exclusions as many will ignore them. it is a bit harsh for dog owners who do pick up their dogs foul I agree with dogs being kept out of designated children’s play areas. I worry if all sldc land was dogs free that walkers with dogs would be prevented from accessing public rights of way. I have the same concern as specified previously, that this will be the thin end of the wedge and that the exclusion areas will become larger. Farm Land. Dogs should be excluded from children's play areas to protect the health of the children and their safety. Young children are quite often wary of dogs. To exclude dogs from the playing fields in Grange is ridiculous. Apart from the football pitches which are used for no more than say 5 or 6 hours a week in the run up to and during the football season there is a huge area which is only used in the main by dog walkers exercising their dogs. Where else is there for local people who are perhaps aging to let their dogs run if the playing fields is closed to them. Where are older people to throw a ball etc. for their dog if not allowed on memorial playing field in grange? The exclusion zones should be narrowly defined, e.g. children’s' play area but not anywhere children might walk. There are enough exclusion now! If it's kept to parks and towns. Dogs are an important element in people's and family's lives, they should not be excluded because of a few. Ok if its limited to play area/sports grounds. Open land outside towns- i.e. countryside particularly public footpaths. As before-dogs need room to exercise -especially big dogs. Again is this going to cost but not enforced. Any areas affected must be clearly sign-posted as such. This will no doubt cost lots of tax payers’ money to enforce something that should be common sense. Also, what is the problem with dogs being in or on a particular area, so long as they are under control and do not foul? How about trying to educate the public by flyers / posters etc. Instead? Make cat owners equally responsible. Tip of iceberg one place after another will become exclusion places. Draconian. Children need to be taught how to behave near a dog not risk adverse. Obviously inappropriate to allow dogs in play areas-these are already fenced. How implemented. Ford Park, Ulverston recently introduced a dog friendly side and a dog free side. Many owners seem to have taken this as a green light to not pick up poo on the dog side. Danger of places dogs CAN go becoming a giant toilet? Don't want other types of area added later. This is a removal of people’s fundamental rights to own a dog and access public land. Specified land with a real reason should only be excluded as now. Dog owners should have areas where they can allow their dogs to be free off lead and run around. Exercising a dog is as much a right as being able to carry out sporting activities. Appleby-in- Westmorland has a football field which is used by practically every dog owner in the town. Dog fouling is not a problem - because the council has provided plenty of waste bins. The solution to the problem is simple - more bins, not draconian 'exclusion' orders. There will always be a minority who do not pick up after their dogs and nothing will change this. However, the majority of responsible dog owners should not be punished for the actions of the small few. Also, by excluding dogs from parks and sports grounds, dog owners will be forced to exercise their dogs in grazing fields. With all the problems that sheep farmers are currently facing with dog attacks on lambs, this consequence should be avoided at all costs. Some areas may be excluded that shouldn't. All dogs require exercise, appropriate areas must be provided. Visitors already complain. Dog needs exercise, visitors will go elsewhere.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 132

Again, you need to ENFORCE the rules Unnecessary rules in inappropriate areas As long as the sites are sensible otherwise it will drive more irresponsible owners out into the wider countryside thus distributing the issue rather than solving it Maybe dogs could be excluded during specific times when sports fields are more likely to be used. Cruelty to animals and harshness to elderly owners who are in the main sensible. How will this be enforced? How will this be enforced? Dogs should not be on leads on promenades such as Arnside, Grange, Ambleside and in cemeteries. Dogs need some exercise. Many people in Grange use the playing field and prom to exercise dogs - would it not be possible to fence off a section of the playing field for use as a dog area? Many of the dog owners are older and one of the reasons I got a dog was a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Too many restrictions may mean people not getting dogs, therefore not getting exercise, therefore more health problems, therefore greater use of doctors, hospitals etc. Dogs need areas to run around. By reducing these possible areas and not opening up other areas this could create frustrated dog owners who will continue to disobey the Orders. How will the orders be implemented, and who by would do it. I would have reservations about it being subcontracted out! The children’s football field near Wattsfield is used by dog owners who are supposed to keep the animal to the perimeter of the field. Some dog owners let the animal go all over the play area. Lazy owners will simply get rid of dogs if there are no designated places to exercise them Unreal, next the rspca will be onto everyone because we can’t exercise our pets properly due to the council having too much time on its hands and behaving like jobs worths. i understand dog mess is a problem but for god sake, it’s not every dog owner who is guilty It feels like dog owners are being picked on. Who is going to man this project and at what expense-NOT rate payers i hope? Quite unnecessary to exclude from around playing fields i.e. Grange. Those areas little used except by dog owners. Who will enforce it on the ground? L of E. This whole exercise is pointless unless SLDC is prepared to commit the necessary resources to enforce it. Large areas of countryside could be denied to dogs and it follows therefore their owners. May be left in cars. It is the few spoiling it for the majority. Do we limit cats and birds as well! Some dog owners will ignore this order unless a dog warden is employed by SLDC. Enforcement Dogs do need appropriate areas of off the lead exercise for good canine socialisation, play and proper exercise. Appropriate areas (e.g. where they aren't going to interfere with children or cyclists) do need to be factored in to the order. Never heard of it before. If they clean up after the dog and keep them on a lead no problem. Agree that dogs are excluded for children's playgrounds and dedicated sports pitches. However some areas of open ground are used for general park space and parts of it occasionally for sports. For example Queen's Park in Windermere. It would be wrong to expect dogs to be excluded or kept on a lead at all times in this park. If dog fouling were better enforced it would keep the part time football/cricket area clean. A bigger problem in this park is the litter found every morning after our "youth" have been in the park during the evening. There is a continual supply of empty beer cans, broken bottles (much more dangerous to children playing) and take away wrappers. This needs to be dealt with much more actively to prevent it rather than just cleaning it up at great cost to the taxpayer. Why should you be banned from walking around a playing field? Council is becoming over intrusive and in danger of interference. This response is from Grange-over-Sands Town Council. In earlier information provided by SLDC,

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 133 there has not been a huge amount of patrolling by dog wardens. And the consultation says that this situation is unlikely to change. Therefore, we question whether the law will be enforced - and if not, we consider that this weakens any potential law considerably. All such areas should be clearly sign posted and fenced off. Encourage police to enforce existing laws, they do not currently Enforcement-some people will always ignore rules like this unless challenged. The extent to which dogs are banned from specified land (what land) I think it's reasonable to prohibit dogs from children’s' play areas but not elsewhere! Areas include areas such as promenade’s-walking is supposed to benefit both human and such area should be in 'dogs on leads' order instead. It is not the council job to exclude dogs from grassed areas. It is regulation that will be offensive to dog owners/and will restrict the dogs right to exercise. Where are dogs going to be allowed to run free and play? Alternative areas for dogs to run free need to be provided. Not everyone has access to cars- or can walk far. Not necessary. How would it be enforced? This is OK so long as it applies only to those playgrounds etc as listed. But there is presumably nothing to stop far more exclusion areas being included. We do not all have massive gardens in which to exercise our dogs. How will you police it, you can not 24/7. Be sure not to stop people with dogs who are responsible using areas of interest. We are concerned that exclusion areas will expand rapidly to include areas where dogs are already allowed. This will make exercising dogs very difficult and promote the use of car journeys to find areas that are dog friendly. Dog walking is a very useful form of exercise and as a pensioner is vital for my wellbeing. We use Memorial Field in Grange on a daily basis and would be devastated if this area is banned. Except for rare events the only people using the field regularly are dog walkers! We see no reason why specific areas cannot be designated for dogs to play off the lead. Policing As long as there is a good reason for this - e.g. children's play areas, sports pitches - then totally in agreement Licensing for dog owners in children’s' play areas etc. There is no problem in creating areas where children can play separate from dogs. However extending this to any playing field means dogs has no place to play in many areas. The effect is that dogs are forced to be let off lead in other areas and this can localise problems to one area rather than spread it out over many areas. If the areas that dogs can be let off lead are not promoted to equal degree that the areas where dogs are restricted then dog owners think they cannot let their dogs off anywhere and this then leads to dogs not being let off which in turn create emotional and physical imbalance leading to behavioural problems. Hence need to ensure there are appropriate places to let dogs off lead near ALL residential areas. (Note we have same problem with children who have no play areas!) Dogs which are roaming around, with no owner in site, obviously just pushed out of the house whilst the owner is out at work, or the owner not being bothered to take them out and care for them properly. This is not responsible dog ownership, and gives responsible owners a bad name. Depends to what extent dogs are being excluded and from which areas Designated dog areas would be better and helpful Too restrictive - see previous answer. It needs to be seen from the dog's point of view, not just fussy town dwellers without dogs of their own. If a dog is with a responsible adult, on a lead i don’t have a problem seeing them in any area. So long as they are under control and on a lead. We often walk our dog on areas that could be included in this. I agree with children’s play areas, but some sports areas we just walk through and this will limit lots of areas used sensibly by the majority. I think on larger playing fields/Grange prom etc it is sufficient to require that dogs are kept on a lead. It is when dogs are off the lead that owners are most likely to turn a blind eye to fouling.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 134

KL Play Park YES BUT not Jubilee Park Quite difficult to enforce. Most problems occur with dog fouling at times of day when no one around to enforce exclusion. Playing fields near here are strewn with human litter constantly. I would hope that if dogs were excluded this problem would be dealt with too. I completely support that dogs shouldn't be allowed in children's play areas and on pitches, but does a complete exclusion order take this too far. Dogs are family pets, and I wouldn't want this order to mean that dogs can't accompany families to watch children's football matches etc. Dogs are a pain running loose on the fields and on the beaches. If you are wishing to exclude dog, then say so. Let’s be balanced. Dogs still go on areas where they are not allowed because nobody polices the issue. Imperative that the order protects children’s play areas/playing fields. 100% Proposed exclusion on Yew Tree pitches. Public rights. This will have an impact on responsible dog owners who act appropriately with their pets, and those who are causing the problems will most likely ignore such rules. (generalisation, but still true) I would like to see this extended to certain beaches - Shouldn't be necessary if they are properly controlled Individuals have the right to reasonably walk their dogs in an area for their own pleasure. The majority of dog owners are responsible people and should not be targeted as second class citizens who can't enjoy public facilities because they happen to own a dog. Again, most dog owners look after and appreciate their environment. People should not be singled out and prohibited from visiting areas which they like because they want to enjoy a walk with their dog. Where's the Fact Bank? Are these places well signposted? It will not be enforced. Exclusion from play areas is good - but who will be there to stop it? I am fit and able and take my dog on serious walks but those of limited fitness will suffer. Responsible owners are penalised. There still needs to be areas where dogs can be exercised... take Grange as an example - banning dogs from the playing fields at end of Prom ... then where is the next accessible green grass? The term 'reasonable' is open to interpretation and some people have an irrational hatred of dogs and are spiteful. If used in the areas specified above that is ok. Its scope should not be extended You are painting all dog owners with the same brush this is just pathetic. I understand the exclusion from children’s play areas but what constitutes this. Is it for example the fenced area on Abbott Hall or does the 'play area' including the surrounding green? I do not support the blanket ban of dogs from children’s play areas and sports pitches. Target the owners who do not clear up after their dogs not all dog owners. Dogs need to learn to how to interact appropriately with children. This cannot be achieved if you segregate them. Children also benefit from this joint play as they learn how to communicate the correct way with dogs (they are the future dog trainers/pet owners and need early exposure to dogs). However I would only fully support banning dogs from sports pitches and children’s play areas if alternative land can be made available for the off leash exercise of dogs. Most dog breads MUST have off lead time to release stress and have a physical and mental work out. A dog restrained on a lead may become more aggressive and more likely to attack because it is not capable of running away from something it is not sure of. If you need advice from a World renowned behaviourist, go to www.johnrogerson.com. Banning dogs from all open grass areas will only mean more dogs with behaviour problems and more dog mess on the streets because they have less places to go to relieve themselves. Unfair TO GOOD DOG OWNERS. I fully advocate restricting dogs from Children’s Play Areas, but I cannot support legislation which will give a green light for councils to impose blanket bans on land managed or owned by SLDC. What are people who live within the town (not me incidentally) supposed to do in order to exercise their dogs? Dogs’ being exercised responsibly on football pitches etc is not the problem. Strays and the minority of irresponsible owners are the problem. How will you police this? If you put the resource into policing current dog fouling legislation you would not have a problem

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 135

1. The areas designated should be restricted to children's play areas and sports pitches, not to entire recreation grounds such as Yew Tree Memorial Field in Grange, which are much used by dog walkers. 2. "Dog Control Orders" (DEFRA 2006) Para 30 requires a balance to be made including access to areas where dogs can be exercised without undue restrictions. In proposing a Dog Exclusion Order, no account has been taken of this guidance. 3. The following paragraph advises that dog exclusion areas should normally be enclosed unless a special case can be made e.g. sections of beach. No resources have been allocated to enclose dog exclusion areas. As framed above, it appears that you wish to make a general exclusion that applies everywhere UNLESS an exception is made for a specific site. This is far too wide a power. The correct approach is by affirmative resolution under which orders are made for specific locations and the existence of all such orders at all such locations are notified to the public by clear and sufficient signage Children and dogs often go together! How many families with young children have dogs? Perhaps near a dog exclusion zone there could be a dog zone so parents can watch their dog and children at the same time? Currently dogs are excluded from children’s play areas, however I live near the playground next to Bowness Bowling Club and dogs are always being taken in by owners. This area has signs re no dogs, it is ignored but no-one seems to be policing the area. How is it going to work if more areas are introduced to the list, when it is obvious it can't be controlled now? In agreement with children’s play areas and sports ground/pitches which is owned or managed by SLDC? However local parks, church yards should be allowed for dogs to have a good run, otherwise they are not getting any decent exercise, again provide more bins if needed. Again common land, access land, beaches, open countryside is required for dog walks to give owner's animals decent exercise. (Of course not if it's lambing season) if we see animals grazing we do call our dog back or keep him on lead till we've passed them. When we go out with our children it is unfair to leave the dog behind. We are finding more and more places we cannot take the dog. If there was somewhere in a play area we could tie him up that would go a way to alleviate the problem (allowing him into a specified corner of the park, but not run around the play area at will) I support the order, but dogs do need places to run/exercise off the lead. Can we have secure areas designated for dogs? The law should be enforced and people who report offences should be able to do so without being identified. Photo evidence should be allowed. Web info-...... unable to access into clean streets-doesn’t this mean roads and pavements rather than open spaces. Wording not specific e.g. could lead to dogs not being allowed on any open area whether SLDC involvement or not. Website info not accessible to all. apart from the way you have it listed as offence What do parents with dogs and children do when they want to go to the park? Don't punish responsible owners. Sensible steps to be taken and notices to state that dogs must be on a lead to cross designated fields where a marked crossing path should be set up to allow people to cut across. This discriminates against 'responsible' dog owners. The problem that needs to be tackled is 'irresponsible' dog owners. I do agree that dogs shouldn't be able allowed to be exercised in children's play areas and sports pitches. I am concerned though that the exclusion order may get expanded to include areas of natural beauty (beaches, along canal paths etc). Why shouldn't a responsible owner and his companion be allowed access to these areas of natural beauty? I would agree to this if it were by licence. That is, people pay a nominal fee for a licence to allow them to take their dog in these areas and if an offence is committed or if that owner didn’t put their dog on a lead when asked the licence could be removed from that person. If the person is asked to produce their licence and cannot (say within 7 days) then the offence is deemed committed. The licence could contain a picture of the dog for identification purposes. very important

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 136

This is all very vague. Are we talking about public footpaths, open fells, woods and forests? Potentially dog owners could be left with no open spaces in which to exercise their dogs. I have absolutely no objections to dogs being excluded from children’s play areas, sports grounds etc but we need to know more details. I've tried looking at the maps and couldn't understand them, they're not very clear. Of course it's a must for children's enclosed play areas - but I don't think this should be expanded to cover all parks - dogs need a space too Couldn't find the fact bank to check where dogs are excluded or as to how many extra areas for exclusion are proposed Will all such areas be clearly identified by signs and will such signs be properly maintained (no one is going to carry SLDC maps). Dogs and children should mix freely. Yes dogs should be kept under control but we live in a world where restrictions are becoming more and more a part of it. Children should learn respect for animals and should live alongside them happily. The dogs that are likely to be a threat to children are owned but people who should never own a dog in the first place. Please can you tell me where exactly I am supposed to exercise my dog? Our local playing field is used by responsible dog owners and very rarely by anybody else. This is excluding good dogs and sensible owners from being part of the community. Looking at the maps, it seems that blocks of land have just been put forward with no real look at how the land is used. In Windermere for example, Queens Park has been highlighted as a possible exclusion zone. I have no issue with dogs being excluded from Play areas, but the size of the space suggested is disproportionate to the pitch size. Part of the exclusion zone is on a rise, so cannot possible be a pitch area. I have two dogs and am a responsible dog owner. I agree with dogs on lead when causing a nuisance and most definitely agree with the fouling orders, but excluding dogs completely will simply not be obeyed. Surely the first two orders cover what is required on pitches. Plus the fact that these pitch areas are only used part of the year. Why not just put a blanket ban on dogs in play areas? There are many elderly people in society who rely on their faithful canine companion, their lives would be sad and empty without them. It is sometimes difficult for an elderly person to walk on rough terrain, parks and recreation grounds are vital to them for this purpose. There are many benefits for all age groups to exercise and play with dogs in park areas where they are safe from traffic hazards. In Staveley where l live, many regular visitors frequent the recreation ground in summer to enjoy picnics and relaxation by the river...most bring their family pet dogs with them. It is also worth mentioning that it is resident dog walkers who clear the constant mountains of general rubbish left in the recreation ground on a daily basis. Once you start these areas it's so easy to extend them without any consultation. Children's play areas already have signs to which no-one can object. Teenagers can present just as much of a problem in an area as dogs or more so but no-one seems to suggest banning them! Not sure how to access the 'Fact Bank'. The map I did consult shows areas where dogs are already excluded (children's play areas, sports grounds). I agree with this, but why more legislation? Same reason as before Yet again responsible owners will be penalised. I walk my dog regularly on Grange Playing Fields, keeping to the margins and always picking up after my dog, why should I be denied this pleasure. Bring in Dog Wardens. We will end up with highly restricted off lead options and dogs need exercise. The extension of areas of "sports ground/ pitches" to open spaces. We moved from London 9 years ago and were amazed by the dog shit everywhere every picks up in London. Well behaved dogs (+owners) are part of FAMILIES. That it will become too draconian. There should be a balance, but most certainly sports fields should be exclusion areas. Parks should be closely monitored and owners of dogs who do not clean up or let dogs run out of control should be given community service cleaning up the parks. Reasonableness and ability of SLDC enforcing this 24 hours/ 7 days a week. Need to check which areas are involved. People need to walk their dogs. If this Order was to interfere with this, that would be worrying.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 137

Will be impossible to enforce without enough staff. More bureaucracy at public expense. Enforcement! PLEASE include graveyards The problem is with people who do not pick up, not the dogs being there. My concern would be that families are not allowed to take their dog (part of the family) with them on certain land. The decisions on which areas might be designated as out of bounds for dogs should give priority to making areas safe and healthy for the public, especially to children at play but needs to be balanced in terms of the needs for responsible dog owners to have access to suitable large areas within easy reach of where they live. Why penalise the responsible dog owners again? Again, name and shame those irresponsible for litter, vandalism and dog mess. Enforcement. Will all areas where children play/walk be covered? Such as school grounds, foot paths used to walk to school, local land marks such as the Kendal Castle, Maudes Meadow, Abbot Hall Park. That it will be un-police able Too hard to police. Well behaved dogs and responsible owners should not be penalised for the problems caused by a very small minority. Dogs should not be walked on proper children’s play areas - however I have no problem with them being walked in large open areas - like Queens park Provision of other suitable areas to allow people to exercise their dogs safely. It should be enough for owners to have control of their dog (s). Too difficult to administer fully. Dogs should not be allowed in the children's play areas but should have access to communal recreation areas. Dogs need to be exercised and walking on the lead on roads is not enough for them. I think if your dog is well behaved it should be free to roam wherever it chooses. Too dictatorial, as long as fouling order is followed, it shouldn't be a problem. Needs to be restricted to non-amenity land. Will be less places for responsible owners to walk their dogs I have concerns that there will be too much restriction. If a dog poops the owner can pick it up and dispose of it but you cannot stop a dog from peeing/marking so if you remove dogs from town streets then where do you go. Dogs are not made to be carried around. There is a vet practice in town in Highgate and people need to be able to walk their dogs to it. This is but one example. How would people living in town centres get their dogs out?! My concern is around blocking routes for people trying to exercise their dogs. I appreciate the need to exclude dogs from area where there will be children playing because of fouling and potentially safety. But it would be better to also include a permitted route through these areas where a dog must be kept on a lead. I personally experienced this on barn holme where a fantastic play area for children was created nearby, however, this meant that the route to footpaths and open areas where dogs where allowed was blocked and meant a very long winded route around. This is not so bad if your very able bodied but for those who have mobility issues this is not very fair. RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS BEING PENALISED FOR NON RESPONSIBLE OWNERS. Who's going to enforce it? CONCERNED THAT THE ORDER IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH! LACK OF ENFORCEMENT Do not ban off lead walking for calm dogs. ALL dog owners will be subjected to this "sledge hammer to crack a nut" approach-NOT those few that should be. No problems should arise if stuff is picked up. Does this mean I can't take my dog whilst attending my grandson’s football match? Again, dogs do need somewhere to run - where could they go? If it becomes the thin end of the wedge and dogs are excluded from all SLDC land.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 138

Dogs are not admitted in the playgrounds in our area anyway. As long as the certain areas include parks. Dogs on leads watching sports events is valuable training. How will you show which areas of a park dogs are excluded from, in a clear way for the public and visitors to understand? I would never let my dog on to soccer fields, play areas etc. but would be really upset if we are excluded from places like the Promenade in Grange. Let's be honest, any mess (litter etc) is made by humans - I personally have never, over the years, seen any dog fouling left on the Prom itself, why do the residents of Grange always want to moan about something It will increase the use of other areas which are also unsuitable. Mallet to break an egg. There are many responsible dog owners. Dogs on a lead around boundaries of sports pitches and play areas should be allowed so participation can be made in watching children/sporting events. Dogs cannot always be left in cars. Enforcement by whom?? Cats? Prohibit dogs from children's playgrounds and playing fields - obviously. Where will people be allowed to walk with their dogs? Many people who have dogs cannot access the Fells; dogs need exercise - preferably somewhere to run. Surely by now the health benefits of dog owning is accepted - helps fight depression, can lower blood pressure, provides exercise etc. Surely we can all live together and continue to allow dogs to be part of life - as they have been for centuries. I really feel this is getting out of all proportion because of a few irresponsible owners; as usual the majority has to suffer. It reeks of discrimination against dogs & their owners. Depends where it is. How will this be policed? It's very difficult to keep dogs off open fields and sports pitches, if they are open to the public. If the fouling issue was stronger policed, then this wouldn't be necessary Agree with the play areas, but it seems reasonable to want to walk your dog across a playing field. I don't fully understand it as a great many don't. They just want to ban dogs. If it’s not dog pollution it would be something else!! If dogs are kept on lead it should not be necessary to exclude them from sports grounds/pitches. For example, if a parent wants to take a child to play sport and watch them, they may wish to take the family dog. If kept under control on a lead and the owner cleans up any mess this should not be a problem. That it could extend to additional open spaces NOT frequented by children or sporting participants Responsible owners always penalised by restriction. If fouling is main issue not actual presence of dogs: ADDRESS THE FOULING. i can understand playing fields and children’s play area , but i do feel it may be used for other areas and restrict dog owners ability to exercise and train dogs in other public areas I like the fact that dogs are allowed in the vast majority of places in the Lakes including shops and pubs. I fail to see why they should be excluded from anywhere provided the owner picks up after them and keeps them under control. In urban areas where there is little space to exercise dogs, a section of park or field could be marked off for use of dog owners. It is not necessary. We don’t have problems in Grange. Will it be enforced in practice? It could easily be misapplied or abused in order to effectively close areas to public access. The measure is too limited in relation to the scale of the problem. You are not realising that it is the owners not the dogs that are the problem. Police the law as it exits and prosecute the guilty owners. If dog exclusion area is not fenced off. The problem is not usually the dog but the irresponsible owner. Danger a law-abiding dog owner will not see the signs... Exclusion areas must be clearly marked to be fair and occasionally there might be areas eg. some golf courses where dogs under control should be allowed.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 139

Too wide ranging, if faeces picked up, no reason why dogs can't use playing fields. No problem if dog is on a lead. Provided it doesn’t include private land, national trust land and LDNPA land. Penalising responsible dog owners At times, walking the dog along with children would naturally result in us all going into areas that perhaps dogs would be prohibited which would, and already does on occasion, restrict activities that we can do as a whole family, i.e. including the dog more political interference in our lives It will be hard for dog owners and seems too restrictive. Cost of sign posting and maintenance for areas a minor problem. WHAT ABOUT DOG FOULING ON BEACHES?? Even as a dog owner I don't think there is any need for dogs to be in playgrounds/sports grounds. The areas shown seem very fair. Dogs need to be kept away from playgrounds and sports fields but please balance this with enough green space to exercise dogs off lead too. Not enforceable. Again dogs are often exercised a t quiet times when there is no officer present Again it all depends on the obedience of the dog and if it is being controlled effectively by the owner. Keeping them on a lead in certain areas may be sufficient. EFFICIENT USE OF PUBLIC LAND, SPORTS PITCHES IN PARTICULAR, BY THE PUBLIC: A football team comprising, say,15 members, uses a pitch, say, 3 hours on a Saturday plus, say 3 hours for each of two training sessions, totalling 9 hours a week over 32 weeks in the year. Compare this with a vastly greater number of dog owners walking their dogs from 6am to 9pm (4pm in the Winter) every day for 52 weeks in the year and it is clear that the most efficient use of the land is by the dog owners. If these dog owners are banned from using this public land then this is discrimination against the majority in favour of the minority. Again often these orders go a step too far and then you are stuck with the order with no chance of getting it reversed. I have no objections to the restricted areas already in place such as children's play areas. It is like in Barrow park you can take dogs on leads in there, but would be a real shame to stop that as I as a dog owner would never venture into that park again and it narrows the places where you can walk your dogs. dogs need off lead exercise and as long as you pick up your poo and your dog is well trained there should be no problems Depends where the areas are and if there is a good reason. Copeland recently introduced this order and I am still seeing lots of parents with young children taking their dogs into play areas. Dogs are part of a lot of family’s lives. The exclusions have also shown to be unenforceable unless constantly manned and unpractical due as unless you are next to the sign it is very difficult to see where it applies. Lindale playing field is not on the map, presumably for some good reason, perhaps because the parish council already have an order on it, which is blatantly ignored by a percentage of users. In the interests of social harmony, enforcement should not be by neighbours complaining about neighbours. It is the responsibility of the authority passing the legislation to enforce compliance, and the dog owners to fund that enforcement. Couldn't it be extended to include school playing fields - at for example Kirkbie Kendal and Queen Katherine Schools? It should be extended to include not only parks but all playing fields including those in school premises Imposes restriction on freedom of movement for persons and their dogs. It imposes restrictions on the freedom of dog owners to walk with their dog in chosen areas. The areas to be covered should be more limited. What happens if you have a good dog which is excluded- the bad dogs ruin it for them! If whole areas of commons and fell side is included. Are these orders going to become so restrictive that you can only exercise your dog properly if you have a car?

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 140

Very sensible Many owners take dogs to watch football matches so have to stand on the edge of the pitch. Why can't dogs run across the pitch if it is not being used? Many residents of the area have pets, particularly dogs, as companions and motivation to take exercise. Discouraging this will have a serious impact on the social and well-being of residents. It is also likely it will result in the town losing its "dog friendly” reputation, which damage businesses both retail and accommodation. You will eventually close all areas for dog exercise. Most resident dog owners are responsible. There isn't a problem in the winter!!! Whilst I agree there should be areas where children can play and sport can take place free of dog fouling, the playing facilities in Grange are under used and if it weren't for the dog walkers, would hardly be used at all. I'm sure there is a way for both to live in peace. In the Grange area there are disabled people who cannot drive out of the area to exercise their dogs and they use the Playing Fields (as generations of people have done) to allow their dogs to run free. If this facility is taken away their lives and the dogs lives will be seriously affected. Also Grange promenade is used by locals and visitors alike to exercise their dogs. To take that facility away would be detrimental for Grange. After all a dog provides companionship for an elderly disabled person and the exercise is beneficial to their health. Why does everyone have to suffer because of the few people who could not care less Should be a presumption against, with a need for evidence that the specific exclusion is necessary. Penalised GOOD DOG OWNERS! The area of grass between St Thomas' (the Parish Church) and the market places in Milnthorpe is used by children and families, but also by some dog walkers to "exercise" and allow their dogs to defecate. Because of the danger to health, it and similar areas should be included in dog exclusion orders if they occur. Agree with exclusion from children’s play areas but otherwise you should use dogs on leads orders. e.g. Jubilee Fields and Leisure Centre car park should not be restricted. Must be able to get dogs out of/into cars! Again, who will authorise this order. There no other areas in Grange where dogs can be able to run freely in Grange other than the playing field or prom. But I would like to state, that this is an example of taking appropriate action, rather than the blanket ideas earlier in the questionnaire. At my age I need a flat area to walk my dog-she needs exercise. She is always on lead and I have always cleaned up if needed. Dogs and their owners should NEVER be excluded from public rights or way and public access land. We pay taxes too! In sensitive areas or at sensitive times all that is required is signage to ask dog walkers to keep their animals on the lead, to the path or to warn of hazards such as livestock. Again will you have the resources to manage this - and if you find those resources what will suffer as a consequence As a dog owner i regularly pick up litter and broken bottles which teenagers have left. Also they set the bin on fire and regularly vandalise the area. Also one of the dogs ate some weed. What if a child had eaten that? Are you going to ban teenagers too? The park in question on Sandylands already has a football/basketball pitch, children’s play area. Surely there is room to section a part off for the dog walkers. It's also a social thing for the adults and children to meet with their dogs there. I do believe not everyone picks up the dog mess that is why we should have a dog warden and also more done to educate dog owners and also for the public to report someone who doesn't pick it up. I saw a 7 year old child down the park this morning with her puppy. She had picked its mess up. She won't be able to take her puppy for a walk anymore as it’s too far for her to take it anywhere. What about the children who own dogs and love to play in the park with them? They won't be able to do that anymore. There are hardly any children, apart from the summer, who use the grass area, they use the new basketball/football pitch or the play area. It would be such a shame to stop dogs from going on there. I'm sure there is a compromise e.g. section for dog walkers. A dog exclusion order will only penalise the majority of dog owners who already abide by the rules.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 141

People who do not pick up after their dog will still continue to access prohibited land unless there is someone to stop them. This exclusion order would adversely affect elderly people who may not be able to walk to a suitable "not excluded" area of land. Grange promenade would be used far more extensively than now and I'm sure that those people who do not pick up after their dog would create even more of a mess than at present. I and my dog walking friends not only pick up our own dog faeces (I have 5 dogs!) but also pick up any other deposits that we see along with litter left by teenagers who use the playing field in the evenings. Why should we be penalised for the unscrupulous few who may not even live in the area and will take no notice of new signs and threats if they ignore the signs which are already there? If visitors with dogs are excluded from the playing fields and gardens, they will either not come to Grange or leave their dogs in their car; neither of these are what anyone wants to happen. We cannot ban dogs from running free in all green areas in town. It would be cruel to the dogs. Provision of specific dog exercising areas around the town would be a good idea for the welfare of dogs. Dog owners should be encouraged to use these areas. Dogs should be taken only where they are permitted not in farmers’ fields. Extend remit to include school grounds. Sensible enforcement e.g. warning first time. What support will locals have to make it effective? Would achieve no specific improvement. The exclusion order must not be draconian. All Dogs need exercise and there must be suitable areas for this to be carried out. The playing fields at Grange have been used by dog owners for many years. Alongside the playing area for children-there has never been a problem. Easy access areas for old people/disabled people are not available. If dogs excluded from playing fields they will go to bandstand park and ruin it, and field will be hardly used. Does not address picking up after dog. Just moves problem elsewhere as people will go somewhere else to not pick up after their dog. Enforcement by? If owners clean up on sports pitches there is no problem. For elderly/disabled dog owners, a local sports pitch might be the only space to exercise their dogs within reach. How is it be enforced? I have seen people with dogs walk right past similar signs It is important not to make dog ownership too complicated for people in terms of simple things like exercise, but to balance this with very onerous outcomes if they allow their dogs to foul places without properly clearing it up etc Specifically-Grange Memorial Field. Many dogs are exercised responsibly here. Yes they should be excluded from the football pitch, maze and children’s play area but parts of this field should be designated as dog exercise areas. That the areas of land may grow over time. Enforcement Enforceability Who decides which land and enforcement Playgrounds - understandable. Other areas like field in Grange - no - this discriminates against a lot of people using a popular area, the vast majority who are law abiding Only that, as usual in these cases, a small minority of dog owners is making life hard for a lot of people! If all dogs were well trained and well behaved, and all owners were responsible people we wouldn't have a problem! Not that I have any further constructive suggestions to make! I am extremely concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge and that the areas will be extended willy nilly. They should be on a lead in playgrounds but I have a friend who visits his wife's grave with her dog. It means a lot to him. Is it reasonable to prevent him from doing this? Areas listed should be sufficient. As a responsible dog owner, rules will not be followed by "owner" who do not clean up or control. My main concern relates to the Yew Tree Memorial Playing Fields in Grange (though it could also

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 142 apply to other places). This is a large field containing both a play area at the nursery and a sports pitch. The play area is already fenced, but not the sports pitch. Is the council proposing to erect a fence around the sports pitch? If not, then this order would appear to be meaningless. Will the council have the resources to enforce such orders? It could be used and abused for made up reasons. Failure to enforce especially at unsocial hours. I agree it should be no dogs in playground and on active pitches in grange, but not the entire area as proposed. Main path is access for prom and there is space to walk dogs in area around pavilion. That it will be used to extend to other areas-have no problem where children play or sports grounds. There are fewer and fewer areas where dogs can be exercised, especially in urban areas, and at the same time, the majority of people that I meet when walking are dog walkers. Whilst agreeing that dog fouling is a problem, it seems unfair to penalise the responsible majority of dog owners because of the few who do not clean up after their dogs. Responsible dog owners are penalised, who are the majority of dog owners. Vigilarly approach. It prevents responsible dog owners who pick up faeces and control their dog from exercising their dogs in these areas. take care you don't exclude dogs so entirely from urban areas that you exacerbate what is already a serious problem in rural areas too What would be the penalties for flouting this order As long as it is sports grounds and children’s playgrounds, then I have not issue with this. However, where do you draw the line? I grew up in North Lakeland and my playground was Ullswater and the surrounding hills. Would dogs be excluded from there? Again, I don't see that there is a problem in Grange, The Playing fields are large and most owners are responsible. Depends on how and where it is applied. Agree on most sports grounds but some are much larger than the 'playing area'. For example if applied in Grange or Millerground would prevent some short cuts and make the Grange prom walk much longer (for elderly people) It will be cruel to poor little creatures. People with dogs often seem to think they have a right for their dogs to go anywhere and would be rude and possibly aggressive if this was questioned by a member of the public. This will stop some elderly people being able to access open land-it will eventually lead to less dog ownership and less healthy elderly people. This is just another reason for jobs that cost the public more money. What’s wrong with old fashioned dog wardens? The area to be covered should be more limited. its anti-dog Enforcement, again. lack of authorised effect I agree dogs should be kept out of sports pitches and children’s' playgrounds but would strongly oppose exclusion from adjacent recreational areas Does this mean ALL public paths etc? Walking areas in Lakes and Fronts too much if yes!! Well behaved dogs should not be excluded from anywhere Restricting access between footpaths increasing restriction for responsible dog owners. Irresponsible dog owns who allow their dogs to roam unsupervised. Micro chipping must be compulsory. AGAIN SEARCH AND RESCUE DOGS MUST HAVE FULL EXEMPTION AS MUST GUIDE AND HEARING DOGS. I agree that dogs should not be exercised in areas frequented by children but the lack of public areas will make exercising dogs very difficult at times, especially for those lacking transport. Once again there should be a balance between the concerns of non-dog owners and the basic rights of people who choose to keep dogs. Or maybe the council just wants to make life so difficult nobody would keep a dog in the future... The playing field area in Grange Over Sands is regularly used by the same responsible dog owners.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 143

Dog waste is always picked up. Dogs are exercised around the perimeter of the fields. Many of the owners, and their dogs, are elderly. This is their only safe and secure place to take their dog. In all the times I have used the fields I have never seen any children in the play area. But neither have I seen dogs allowed near the public areas. Once again dog owners should be encouraged to take responsibility. 1) Mothers taking children to a play park with their pet on a lead - what are they supposed to do? Tying it up outside is disruptive and could lead to accidents; not taking it out at all is unreasonable. It is education that should inform the mother to ensure that dog has defecated before it reached the public space so that once inside it could be controlled to everybody's satisfaction. 2) The same is true for sport pitches. The whole issue is education and by-laws that can be enforced and policed, not making exclusion orders. Why is a blind person's dog different from anybody else's? This is a stupid principle: let a 'blind dog' into a play park but not that owned by anybody else. The problem needs sorting but not in this way The council using this against dog owners unfairly Only dedicated children's play areas and sports grounds should be included. It should NOT be used to exclude dogs from areas simply to prevent any fouling. It is not fair to exclude areas where dogs could be exercised simply to prevent any fouling as this is unfair to responsible owners. Sufficient measures to make all dog owners clean up after their dogs should be used rather than exclusion. Some specific areas may need controls, but blanket bans are absurd. What happens when I have walked over the fells and come to an excluded area with my dog - do I retrace my steps? Why dogs are completely excluded? Around 23% of households have dogs and part of the joy of coming to the lakes is walking with your dog. If the issue is nesting birds, or other wildlife, then use of a lead at appropriate times can control this. This would be unenforceable without frequent patrols Exclusions from Public Parks will have a negative effect on tourism business I understand the need to section of areas and forbid dogs, on football pitches and school grounds etc but every section must be looked into directly. At the moment the school at Old Hutton has a public footpath that goes right through the school playing area and a NO DOG sign, this is all very well but you have to retrace your steps and walk at least a mile to get to the other side of the playing field. There is no notice of this dog prohibited area on the OS maps, maybe you should think about putting these areas on the maps. I'm not sure where to find the map; I agree that dogs shouldn't go in designated children's play areas and sports venues. I would be concerned if the exclusion were extended to parks and green spaces. Why not exclude dogs from all children’s playgrounds throughout the council area not just specified places? Whilst dogs should be excluded from all areas such as playgrounds for children and sports grounds the order must be applied against strict criteria. Dogs have to be exercised somewhere. To strike balance areas should be designated where dogs are welcome. This will be implemented in areas where dogs have been walked for years and most dog owners are responsible at picking up faeces and respecting areas where children play. Thus punishing the masses for the actions of few. Enforceability. I believe that the views of parents should be weighted most highly here. I am concerned about blanket bans however, as surely there are families with both children and dogs who would like to be able to play together safely. I would personally rather see more focus on the control/management of dog fouling and dogs not causing a nuisance than blanket bans in public spaces. Many families have dogs and they want to take the dog with them to the areas above. Doesn't make sense to restrict dogs from the areas above. Some inappropriate areas included I am concerned about responsible dog-owners with well-trained dogs. Seems a pity that such family pets will be prevented from joining the children in playgrounds. Blind and disabled people should be considered.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 144

ENFORCEMENT. Thin end of wedge/nanny state. If v. quiet and don't foul area. As no reason for more legislation. Irresponsible dog owners are likely to continue flouting laws. As with dogs on leads orders my concern is that this may be the thin edge of the wedge, and once implemented will be extended to cover many areas where dogs are exercised. There will be no check in place to stop this as SLDC ignore public wishes (See New Road Car Park) anyway, and only carry out public consultation because they need to be able to be seen to do so. A lot of people rely on parks and open areas in towns to exercise their dogs, and care must be taken not to restrict access more than necessary- what about fencing in play areas/pitches rather than banning dogs from the whole area. As far as clean streets are concerned, banning dogs from one area will only move the problem somewhere else, so this order will not necessarily achieve the aim of this consultation I agree dogs should be excluded from designated children’s play areas such as play grounds, school grounds, and sports fields but not open areas like Gooseholme, Abbot Hall, Kendal Castle, Kendal Green etc. Why can't we have dog parks like in the USA? Then there is a specific area for the dogs to roam free. The play park at Kirkby has this rule, and again it is ignored and is often full of dog poo. People just go after dark or look so menacing that nobody would dare challenge them and let their dog play/poo. It is not that enforceable - a kids play park full of kids or a mum and kid on their own aren't going to challenge someone (nor should they have to) so who is going to police it? Will it be the thin edge of the wedge? Will people try to get dogs excluded from places like Helm and Scout Scar? I have a retired guide dog that walks with me everywhere. This idea will lead to more dogs being loose on the roads and there are not many now areas where dogs can have the freedom to run. Any responsible owner will not allow their dog to foul on such open spaces. This order seems to be designed to stop a minority. Monitoring and policing in a time of cut backs and reductions in service. Are we talking UTOPIA? Where can I take my dog? Must not be open to abuse to close all land to dogs. Will it be enforced? My main concern is that SLDC will not ENFORCE these orders (probably claiming budgetary constraints). Exclusion orders should not only be for playgrounds and sports facilities but for more general public leisure spaces (e.g. promenades, public parks and gardens etc. ) and where or nearby where food is produced, sold or consumed. It doesn't seem logical to exempt any except the blind from complying; They are probably the only ones who should be exempted as they cannot see notices etc which might notify people of the exclusion. I think this should only be in places where there are children’s playing areas. Utterly shocking I'll thought out ideas. Imagine the young mothers going to the park yet not being able to take their dogs as where will they put them. It is not a socially acceptable policy and is restrictive to so many community or family activities. I am disgusted at my local representation on this issue. I am not a criminal as I have a dog. I am responsible as are all the owners I know as well. Treat us that way as society has moved on and everyone understands as to the disgusting dog mess issues and therefore so should the local council. How will it be controlled? I agree with no fouling on play areas and playing fields but that means someone needs to be patrolling it 24/7. It’s unaffordable. There are much better things to spend council money on. Will it be enforced effectively The term 'where appropriate' is too vague Only that it may not be backed up and supported once in place. I do agree with dogs being excluded from specific children’s play areas which have swings and play equipment on etc. but not from wider grassed areas. If you have orders in place for dogs to be on leads and all fouling to be immediately removed it seems to me excessive to exclude dogs, as this

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 145 makes family life difficult. In particular I can't understand why you have included the Lakes Leisure Centre car park areas in Kendal in the order. I often tie my dog up outside while booking on courses or buying tickets or using the public conveniences. This facility can't afford to lose custom (it would lose mine). Collecting and delivering children to lessons while walking the dog is a normal family activity, you can't tie them up outside on Burton Road! This seems totally unreasonable to me and to go against the government’s policy of encouraging sport for all. Certain breeds of dog should be on a lead at all times but there are a majority of dogs which, under their owners' supervision, are no threat to the public. Does this apply to drugs, alcohol and litter? What about cats? If too vague dog owners pay c.tax too. Dogs need to be walked somewhere away from traffic. Elderly people require an area to walk their dogs. The majority are responsible-carry leads and bags. Dogs and people have used Grange playing field for always. It would be a crime to ban them. 95% of dog owners are in control of their dogs. This is a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Playgrounds-dogs are part of a family. If kept on leads responsible owners will R.G as they found it. Why should responsible dog owners with well-behaved dogs be excluded from certain areas? Should include ALL sports fields not just SLDC owned. Who will enforce these orders and will there be enough of them? Lack of adequate and responsible alternatives. To exclude dogs from certain areas that are not fenced off will may a major concern here There must be a bit of common sense applied if dogs wander to these exclusion zones unintentionally Families may take the dog for a walk and go to a park so the children can play. If the dog is properly under control and owners clear up after the animal, then I don't see a problem. Badly thought about. Dog bans are notoriously difficult to police. DEFRA says if you cannot enforce you shouldn't apply the order. Banning members of the public with dogs from public open spaces is discriminatory and will also have a huge impact on tourism in Lakeland which is generally accepted as a dog friendly area. Nobody will take any notice of it. As said earlier, there are some areas where I believe dogs can be off lead. Leave it up to the owner to control and take any consequences. Deaf people are still able to read dog exclusion orders and should not be exempt from the rules. That its parameters are not wide enough to deal with irresponsible dog owners. Not required. we are being encouraged to spend time getting fit or fitter and being outside yet a plan to exclude people from certain areas because they have a dog are being considered. Also families have children and dogs it is good for them all to spend time together in a safe area. it is only a few people that do not clean up after their dogs or do not walk them but let them roam unsupervised and your order would not stop this you would only be penalising decent families and people by excluding them from public areas that their tax pays for. It must be strictly enforced, and if financial help is needed to enclose areas, perhaps some public funding could be made available too general and open to abuse Very limited areas. Some areas need an alternative area. I think that this should be used sparingly and sensitively and I would not want the application of this to be a priority for the allocation of funds. Enforcement- as previously. Lack of freedom of choice/misuse powers. I haven't seen the Fact Bank yet - I'm concerned that there will be nowhere to exercise my dog off the lead. Dogs are already banned from so many places, and the number of such areas is increasing every year, with the result that it is becoming almost impossible to own a dog responsibly and give it the amount of exercise it needs.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 146

I have a dog of a breed which needs a minimum of half an hour to an hour free running every day to remain in optimum health. When she was younger there were plenty of areas to exercise her. These are gradually being restricted and it is now difficult to give her the required exercise to maintain health, although I am managing - just - but for how much longer? I do train my dog and I take her health seriously. Any more restrictions and what am I supposed to do? Win the lottery and acquire my own land? Give up my dog to a rich person who already has acres of land? Some of us are trying our best and have exercised and trained our dogs, pick up after them and worm and vaccinate them regularly, yet it seems this is not enough. Dogs are part of a family's life and this can mean a trip to a playground. If a dog is well trained and under control and provided all faeces are bagged and removed then there shouldn't be a problem. Similarly, not all sports grounds are in use 7 days a week so closing access to dog owners is reducing the availability of places where dogs can enjoy a good run, chase a ball etc. Yes I`m a taxpayer and I do not want to be excluded from any public place maintained by my government and council tax payments simply because I want to enjoy the company of my dog whilst I walk and take exercise through the facility/amenity Some responsible dog owners also are discriminated against along with the bad ones. May not cover areas where children play i.e. Serpentine Woods, which is used by many children especially in the summer months. Which at the moment is a glorified Dog Loo. It is important to know what criteria will be used to select 'certain areas' ...they should not just be chosen at random. Dogs are already correctly excluded from play areas and sports fields, but there must be some places left for responsible pet owners to be able to walk their dogs

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 147

Dogs on Leads Order

Question 12: Do you have any concerns with the Dogs on Leads Order? 367 comments

Not convinced that this is a problem or that introduction will prevent fouling/exclusion. I support the idea of The Dogs on Leads Order but am concerned that all that will happen is that it will be introduced but not actively be enforced. The order must be very carefully worded. 'Highways and footways maintained by public funding' covers all sorts of paths, including rural public footpaths and bridleways. Including the term 'pavements' does not help - because this merely clarifies what a 'footway' is. I suggest that the wording used by Eden District Council is the most appropriate as it says exactly what they you are trying to achieve. Their wording is: "All such parts of the roads, carriageways, footpaths, footways, alleyways, yards and verges which are open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access and which are within 200 metres of a public highway which comprises or includes a carriageway which is subject otherwise than temporarily to a speed limit of 40 miles per hour or less except for "Access Land" within the meaning of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and any rights of way crossing Access Land." Anything that makes it an offence to have a dog off a lead on a countryside footpath would be unenforceable, and therefore weaken the whole law. Whilst I agree that dogs should be kept on a lead in general there may be some dog owners who wish to walk with their well-behaved/trained dogs off of leads on some public highways. Control should still be maintained and be seen to be maintained Not a priority Risk of overreaction. May be too restricted. Not needed on little rural lanes. If an area is not properly supplied with areas, elderly people may not be able to exercise their dogs On main roads, estate, YES. Country lanes’ providing the owner controls the dog, NO. Again it comes to the issue of dogs being under control. The law already exists. Walking with my dog off the lead in an area where there is a potential problem I would have her walking to heel. If I thought there was likely to be a hazard where simply walking her to heel wasn't enough, then I would use a lead. It should be up to the owner to take responsibility for their and their dog's actions. If the dog is out of control and causing issues then enforce the existing laws. And again, new laws are only likely to restrict the law abiding who are conscientious dog owners. Those that are already breaking the law by allowing their dogs to be out of control and causing a nuisance/danger are unlikely to suddenly change their behaviour. the criteria should be on the ability to control a dog in whatever circumstances not whether they are on a lead or not Enforcement People with restricted mobility need somewhere to exercise dogs off leads. A (well trained dog) should not be subjected to a lead. Consideration needs to be given, once again to the time, place and dog in question- what certain circumstances make inappropriate may be fine at other times of day or with another dog. It needs case-by-case discretion to be demonstrated by the dog owners, and if they demonstrate a lack of such discretion, by the officers and police etc. A dog does not have to be on a lead to be under control. This is not the issue in the clean street campaign, which is about dog fouling, not the control of dogs, A public awareness campaign on fouling, fouling habits is a far better way to educate and ensure that fouling is not tolerated in the district. the problem seems to be dog faeces but here in grange the recalcitrant tend to be those whose dogs are on a lead solve that one I understand that it is required in some public areas; however, I am worried that it could be overused.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 148

If you can control your dog off the lead I believe that paths in rural areas should allow dogs to be off the lead. Same comment again - that this will be the thin end of the wedge and that the dogs on leads areas will become larger. If a responsible dog owner wanted to go for an early morning walk or run along Grange promenade and let their well-behaved dog off of the lead, I believe they should be allowed to do so as long as the dog is under the control of the owner and at heel. I do understand that some owners are irresponsible and their dogs can cause a nuisance but this could be controlled by an instruction to put the dog on the lead. There are definitely areas where dogs need to be under close control on leads i.e. on highways and pavements. Other than this I think the Council should respect the intelligence of dog owners to keep their dogs on a lead as and where they feel that it is appropriate. Otherwise how are the council going to enforce it? They are not able to enforce traffic parking restrictions properly so they are not going to enforce these proposals without incurring great expense which they obviously can't afford, so what is the point of making orders that can't be enforced. Those that are irresponsible-will still let their dog foul, even on a lead. Category a) is much too wide; by all means require dogs to be on leads in town centres, but not on country lanes!! Also dogs on leads=more fouling on paved areas!! It should be up to responsible owners! Yes if it’s on a lead all the time, because you cannot exercise a dog property on a lead, which makes a dog frustrated and vicious. Does a 'reasonable reason for failing to do so' include they are under control? A lead doesn't always mean control. A well behaved dog at an owner’s side doesn't have to be on a lead. Near traffic is ok-should be on leads common sense elsewhere. Open land outside towns i.e. countryside particularly public footpaths. There is a danger of dog owners being ostracised. Takes enjoyment out of walk for both owner and dog. Parks should be included and housing estates. Already an offence to have a dog out of control in a public place. Dog can be shot for stock chasing/killed for attacking people. How are you going to enforce this? Grange Prom is the only place elderly people can exercise their dogs easily. I think it is totally inappropriate for the areas I've highlighted above. Again Working dogs have exemption from wearing collars. The proposal is again repressive and punishing the good owners with well trained dogs. The proposal is to vague. On busy roads there is a case. On remote roads there is not You should have to earmark specific areas A dog can be in close control without being on a lead. It may not be enforced!! Educate/oblige owners to be responsible How will this be enforced? Dogs need freedoms as well as constraints. Open areas such as promenades away from traffic are perfectly ok for dogs to be given freedom. Most dogs obey commands to return and leads are not needed for them. Dogs do need some free exercise. I walk my dog early along the prom in Grange and I let her off the lead after she has done her business, which I then pick up and put in the bin. She gets some play time running after a toy once she has done her business (the prom is empty and I put her back on the lead if people or bikes go by). I feel I'm a responsible dog owner. It's not just dog mess on the prom - broken glass and rubbish is also a common occurrence. Promenades not adjacent to a road e.g. in Grange are superb places to let the dog off the lead, so long as it is under control I would support dogs on leads in the areas listed however my concerns relate more to open spaces where a dog can be exercised more freely. It’s ridiculous!!!!! Big brother state it’s pathetic, its society you need to look at, they don’t respect where they live. And they RUIN IT for everyone else. this country is rack and ruin So if I am to understand this correctly I could be walking on the open fell that is a footpath and

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 149 because the stile that has been put in was paid for out of my taxes I may need to have my dog on a lead? You are having a laugh. All dog owners should attend training classes and learn to control dogs. Therefore not necessary to use leads on promenade-within reason. If very busy, responsible owners will keep dog on lead. Who will enforce it on the ground? Lack of Enforcement. Again enforcement and given the current state of LA funding resources are not likely to be available. Having walked on Grange prom spanning 50 years seeing dogs on and off leads, a blanket order is overkill. Good thinking hot OTT. Dog owners will not be encouraged to train their dogs to behave. People will have difficulty in ...... if they are i a restricted area without ...... signage. Ability to enforce. Some dogs are extremely obedient off lead and they will feel restricted. Never heard of it. Should be on leads. All above areas are different situations and all dogs are different. Some are very well behaved off the lead There is too much bureaucracy and not enough common sense. Dogs wander up and down the prom with owners either on or off the lead depending on the owner’s knowledge of the dog. I have never seen an accident or heard of one. This is becoming an anti-dog issue. Why cannot an owner take the family dog out with the family? Some dogs, particularly mature dogs, can be controlled by their owners with having to be on a lead. However I would support the use of leads on highways on road safety grounds and in cemeteries as a mark of respect to bereaved visitors. This response is from Grange-over-Sands Town Council. We support the proposal for a dogs on leads order for the pavements around the town, and also on roads without pavements within the built up area - mainly because of the change in behaviour this brings about (not running at people, safer interaction between dogs and cars / bikes and so on). However, the term 'highways maintained by public funding' also includes public footpaths and bridleways. It would not be appropriate for such an order to apply to rights of way such as this. The whole of Grange Promenade will be designated a dogs on lead area. We question whether there is really the need for this as a recent SLDC patrol report stated that there "was no evidence of major problems". If that is the case, then an order changing the status quo is unlikely to achieve much. There are instances where dogs do foul the promenade, and it is not cleared up. But this is the fault of the owners, not the dog - and we question whether making dogs be on leads will actually change this? We would like to see some empirical evidence that having dogs on leads reduces un-removed fouling incidents. Secondly - the map provided is confusing. It appears to extend the dogs on lead area to the sands south of the subway at Yew Tree Playing Fields. There is no promenade here, so presumably this is an error. If not - then there seems little justification in having one area of the sands a dogs on lead area. We would like to see dogs excluded ONLY from children's playing areas and the football pitch, NOT from the whole of the Memorial Playing Fields. Finally, in earlier information provided by SLDC, there has not been a huge amount of patrolling by dog wardens. And the consultation says that this situation is unlikely to change. Therefore, we question whether the law will be enforced - and if not, we consider that this weakens any potential law considerably. Restrictions should not apply to all footpaths such as those on fells, tow paths etc. No to Promenade at Grange as this is the only flat exercise area available to resident. Encourage police to enforce the existing legislation, they do not currently I am concerned that this may be extended to rural public footpaths and bridleways Where and when dogs must be on a lead. Q11 (A) Too general scope, clarify further. I would support the order if it did not include grassed areas.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 150

I would support the dogs on lead order if it were not included on grassed areas. Again, who is to do the policing? Not needed. How to enforce so people take seriously! Well behaved dogs on promenades are not a problem. The blanket banning of activities is a modern malaise. The essence of a democracy is to enable all parties to work together to find an agreeable solution. It's policing As long as again, in urban areas - surely not going to ask farmers to put their dogs on leads on the roads?! They don't own a lead! I do believe dog owners should be allowed to judge for themselves whether their dog is well behaved enough to be off a lead in most public areas as long as the owners are within sight of them. As with other restrictions to off lead access it is essential that there is always signage to indicate where off lead access is allowed. In many locations there are signs that say no off lead access however what dog owners also need to know is where they can let their dogs off lead. Some beaches on the south coast do this very well and all dog owners then need to do is follow signs to the off lead area that they can use. It is difficult to follow rules to keep dogs on lead if information is not provided that highlights where dogs can be let off lead. For any restrictions to work providing such clear information is essential, as otherwise dog owners will just let their dogs off lead anyway as research indicates that dog owners will let their dogs off lead even if this is not allowed unless they are indications of where such access is available. Again, this all very well. Most dog owners who are responsible wouldn't dream of allowing their dogs to roam about in such areas. It isn't the dogs fault! having been bitten by uncontrolled dogs roaming in open country, the requirement to leash dogs should be applied whenever other people are around It does not cover playing fields, children should not have to play with dogs and play where they have left faeces. Should be made compulsory Not all dogs behave badly off their lead. We rarely have to use a lead and this will severely limit the areas we are able to use. You are going to find there will be a lot of fat, badly behaved dogs and an even fatter population if people are made to feel that they are not able to exercise. Their dogs without only being able to use certain areas especially in bad weather. Apart from guide dogs, I don't see why dogs should be allowed in cemeteries at all. Having dogs on lead won't address the issue of dog fouling. There are plenty of dog owners who don't pick up dog mess even though their dog is on the lead. Some dogs are beautifully behaved off the lead and sensible/responsible owners shouldn't be penalised for the poor behaviour of others. Who will enforce it? More areas for dogs. Only area known to me is Castle Hill. Quiet times before 9am should be with discretion. People just ignore the fact that their dog should be on a lead. There should be dog wardens on patrols. To be effective there will need to be adequate policing. Suggestion: duties of parking control staff could be extended. Walking with dogs along Prom wonderful experience. Enjoy meeting so many folk, with or without dog. Right to exercise. Well trained dogs do not need leads, dogs need to be able to run around freely but also if they misbehave then they should have their leads on. It is ridiculous to require dogs to be on the lead all the time on quiet country lanes Most dog owners are sensible and will put their dog on a lead when it is necessary. There is nothing wrong with having a dog off its lead provided it is not busy or common smear is used. This sort of rule is going to cause bad feeling And will encourage again abuse from people who do not like dogs who simply like to order or threaten other individuals. In all walks of life there will be irresponsible people who Have not got the intelligence to stop behaving in a stupid way. Most people with dogs are responsible and know when they should put their dog on a lead without being threatened with the law.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 151

"Highways and footways (pavements) maintained by public funding” extremely limiting! Currently dogs should be kept under close control and frequently are not, but seeing as no one enforces the current laws I don't see how things will change. Only that dogs are supposed to be on leads on Grange promenade but it is not enforced now!! Cyclists are also a problem on promenades. if the dog is well behaved and under control on Grange prom then not a problem - common sense needs to be used Dogs are good companions for lonely people. This sort of legislation is likely to intimidate even responsible owners. Yes dogs should be allowed to run to keep fit and healthy. I feel that if dogs are trained to a sufficient level that they do not require a leash to be under complete control by the owner then they should not be penalised. I fail to see the problem with a dog off lead IF it is under control and not causing a danger. Personally I walk with my dog ON lead whilst in the places you list because it is appropriate in our case but unless you have a strong reason for it, I think putting restrictions on people just angers them. I also do not see how it will make the streets cleaner, sorry. However, turning dogs out in the early morning or late evening, without supervision, allowing them to relieve themselves - usually in a neighbour's garden - needs to be added to the control order. Dogs should be on lead next to highways and on busy (i.e. High Street Pavements) for their own safety and that of others but is their provision for differentiating from paved alleys leading to fields? For distinguishing paved areas of a canal for instance or river-bank? 1. The wording of Schedule 1 to the proposed order would require dogs to be kept on leads on quiet rural lanes (e.g. Spring Bank Lane, Grange), and footpaths with a hard surface (e.g. between Kentsford Road and Cart Lane, Grange). This is unacceptable to responsible dog handlers. The order should be restricted to urban and busy rural roads, if required at all. 2. There is no evidence in the Cabinet report that this order has anything to do with Clean Streets. Indeed, responsible dog owners will clear up after their dogs, whether or not they are on lead. Irresponsible owners will not. 3. Grange prom is used by elderly and infirm dog owners to exercise their dogs and there is no suitable alternative available. There are country lanes where one can see people or vehicles approaching up to two miles away and there is very little pedestrian or vehicular traffic. As long as the dog is on the lead well before the approach of pedestrians or traffic I can see no good reason why the dog must be kept on the lead at all times. Also, what are "set areas". This needs much clearer definition before an informed response can be given. We allow our dog off the lead on quiet footpaths away from built up urban areas or where there's no traffic. It's common sense if you have a well behaved dog you shouldn't need it on a lead at all times, granted if it's not and likely to run off and cause hassle then yes they should be on a lead. We also allow the dog off in Ulverston church yard for a quick run. As it's on the way to Ford Park & The Hoad. The church yard currently has no dog bins, plenty of clean up signs though! Yes again we clean up the mess and take it with us until we can find a bin! As for Promenades such as Grange-Over-Sands, not in agreement it's a very long walk and people like to take their dogs along that stretch, again provide bins perhaps? We also use walk around The Gill and that is a bad area for dog mess, I would suggest more policing in that area to encourage owners to clean up, again if a dog is well behaved they should be allowed to have a run along the path before you reach The Gill. Perhaps another bin along that stretch? There are few places to allow a dog to run, as they need to do for health, close by. The only option is the cemetery/church yard in Ulverston for a quick morning stroll and run before work. If we could not let him run here then his health would suffer. Even if dogs are on leads, you still need the owner to act responsibly and pick up the poo. Short leads at all times, no exceptions, on highways, footways and promenades. No Dogs allowed at all in cemeteries. Elderly and infirm not being able to reach an accessible open space with their dog. But what is different to this from present legislation which currently covers all these aspects.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 152

Again responsible owners know when to keep their dogs on a lead. Why are they punished because of idiots? Does this include parks and open spaces managed by the Council, i.e. The Rec in Windermere On proms (such as grange) dogs should be on leads at designated times. Summer 1st April-30th Sept on lead from 9am-5pm. Winter 1st Oct-31st March on a lead from 10am-4pm. I have said neither/nor to highways and footways because when out in the more rural areas I believe a well-trained dog is alright off the lead. To my mind it is the well trained bit that is fundamental to most of what has been said regarding dogs. My dog walks by my side as instructed. He also sits, waits, stands and comes to when instructed. Maybe the licence idea being sent around the various bazaars could be implemented. The only way to obtain said licence would be to take ones dog to a local training school where the owner and dog are trained and only issued a certificate upon reaching a standard. I have further ideas of this type and can discuss them via my email address. See earlier comments. Some dogs are well trained and well behaved and under the control of their owners so why are they penalised? I already keep mine on a lead in the places mentioned above but I don't see why owners who have taken steps to ensure their dogs are well-behaved should be penalised. not a concern- just a comment that our border collie is without a lead sometimes and behaves perfectly In rural areas there are many highways and footways where this would be an unnecessary rule- I can see the point in urban areas. This could lead to more and more restrictions on where people can walk their dogs freely in the future. I agree that all dogs should be on leads when walking on roads, but to restrict people to walking them on leads in other places is worrying. I do agree that people who own troublesome dogs should be more responsible and keep their dogs on leads more often than perhaps they do now. As written on previous pages Unless there are animals grazing it should be sufficient to require dogs to be under the owners' control. If they allow the dogs to 'worry' livestock or be a danger on the highway then they must take responsibility for their actions. Not needed It will never affect the irresponsible-just penalise the responsible. It should be applied widely to any prom unless the dog is being used for agricultural/sporting reasons. As detailed earlier dogs can be controlled effectively whilst not on a lead. There should not be blanket orders to punish responsible dog owners An educated dog owner would never have their dog of the lead on the highways or pavements don’t blame the dogs it's the ignorant owners Well trained dogs may not need leads. Having a dog on a lead does not stop it fouling or jumping. It is the attitude of the owner which counts. Many dogs can be off the lead without causing problems. It should be control and enforcement not a total ban. That people will still allow their dog to be off a lead regardless of the order. It would be better to enforce existing laws for aggressive/out of control dogs. Does not go far enough. Promenades is too wide a category. Grange is very different to Arnside which is next to a road. It should be applied when there is heavy traffic nearby or adjacent. Ability of SLDC to enforce orders. More bureaucracy at public expense. Responsible owners with well-behaved dogs are able to access each situation and act sensibly. Plenty of well-behaved/trained dog ok on public paths. Responsible owners who have control over their dogs should be allowed to use their discretion. You can have irresponsible parents who have children out of control in the same way as irresponsible dog owners. It is discriminatory The order should also apply to formal parks and gardens - in Grange this should include Park Road

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 153

Gardens as well as the Ornamental Gardens. If dogs are off the lead they endanger wildlife, spoil flower beds, and deposit faeces in places where owners will be disinclined to pick it up and which will later be transferred to someone's shoes. Personally I would prefer to see all dogs on leads at all times and in all places - for the safety and peace of mind of all pedestrians and small children in pushchairs. Dogs can also attack one another when off the lead, and can worry and attack sheep in the countryside. As above. Please note, this is a limited way of thinking to keep streets clean. Your Clean Street Consultation is too targeted and does not address other issues to keep streets clean. Why haven't you included fly tipping questions and general rubbish questions? Surely, it would be more cost effective for SLDC and our taxes if you consolidated this questionnaire/consultation. DRACONIAN Enforcement That retractable leads are not used properly, and become a danger Too hard to police correctly. Nanny state symptoms. Train the public in cleaning-up after dogs and remove litter. Why punish responsible owners who have trained their dog to behave properly when not on a lead. Should be on a lead at all times in public space Dogs need to be allowed to be off the lead in appropriate areas. You cannot have a dog on the lead 100% of the time that it is out of doors. Ability to enforce by SLDC Not necessary. Some (many) are well controlled and walk at heel. I feel strongly that dog walkers are being penalised by a few cases of owners not being responsible for their dogs. not really I exercise my dog in a very rural area off the lead but where there are cars she is restrained. Less exercise facilities for responsible dog owners Yes as stated previously, dogs need to be able to run free for short periods every day. As one farmer so succinctly put it when you release a dog that has had no chance to run around it is like a coiled spring and virtually impossible to control. So dedicated areas where dogs are free to run should be available. Perhaps farmers could supply paddocks/fields that are secure and charge a fee for parking. Dogs should be muzzled as well when out in public as some dogs can be very aggressive but look harmless. If a dog shows any aggression then it should be muzzled when out in public. Yes, more on the principle, the messages need to be about taking responsibility for your animal rather than just enforcing that dogs must always be on leads. Dogs and their responsible owners have as much right to roam as others. For example I've been nearly knocked over by children on scooters and running in front of me - I wouldn't even dream of suggesting you should put them on a lead in public places. CONCERNED THAT THE ORDER MAY NOT BE WIDE ENOUGH Restrict to no recreational paths. Again, there are dogs and dogs. a). Above-main highways and footpaths-YES. Quite narrow country lanes not always necessary if under control. I just think COMMON SENSE should prevail and this is quite frankly a waste of tax payers money because it will go nowhere. as already stated It depends exactly what the set areas are. Already a leads requirement for dogs to be on leads on public highways. Owners are best placed to decide if a lead is necessary. I think the promenade at Grange is an exception from the others as the dog is contained by the nature and construction of the promenade, and the majority of dog walkers who use that area are mainly mature responsible people. Dog fouling at Grange is not an issue; the bigger issue is council workers driving down the prom to empty refuse bins.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 154

See previous comments - although I don't believe for one minute dog owners responses will be considered at all. Just the usual council going through the motions As shown here it is not clear that the lead should be no more than 2 meters. Too Draconian as a general regulation. All dogs are not uncontrolled menaces. Control the owners instead. Not sure dogs need to be on a lead on small, quiet rural roads with good visibility. Enforcement issues and costly enforcement. How will it be policed when even now the few people who do not clear up after their dogs are not fined? I am concerned that SLDC may get "carried away" and introduce Orders wherever the fancy takes them. I am also concerned about the amount of money all this must be costing when you are presumably trying to save money. If it is extensive and unfair. This penalises all dog owners and will not stop dog fouling by irresponsible owners. This question has already been asked?! No issues with leads on pavements/highways, but there are concerns with this order in open spaces Birkrigg Common should be a designated area. I don't know what it is!! Depends on the areas covered. It would be wrong to prevent dogs from being off lead everywhere. Signs need to be clearly displayed to indicate if dogs must be on lead. I think it is interesting that cats belonging to neighbours from some distance are allowed to freely roam through gardens and use them as toilets...... That the order could, without consultation, be extended to additional areas SHOULD INCLUDE ALL PUPLIC FOOTPATHS a, Does that include canal path? Agree to pavements by roads. I agree that owners should keep their dogs under control but some dog owners can do this without a lead. An owner can usually judge this themselves. However, all dangerous dogs should be kept on leads. I would oppose a requirement for dogs to be kept on lead in places other than the ones specified in the previous question. It would be taking away the choice of a responsible dog owner to let their dog off the lead where it is safe and appropriate. Enforcement. Another blunt instrument! If a dog is walking to heel it does not need to be on a lead. The owners that don't pick up the poo still won't whether it’s on a lead or not!! You are just penalising the innocent responsible owner for the sake of a few who will continue anyway. I think owners should use some discretion as to whether it is safe to have their dogs off the lead. For example if I take my dog on the canal path at 7.30am in the morning I know there will be lots of people on bikes going to work and so keep her on a lead. However on a Saturday tea time there is hardly anyone around and therefore I think I should be able to choose. The walls need rebuilding on the castle side of Parkside Road cemetery. As before-if in field etc. with no stock, wildlife or other people to disturb, can be off lead. They need somewhere to run. Dogs to be on leads whilst there are other users, but not if there is nobody around. Well behaved dogs do not necessarily have to be on a lead to be under control. All highways and footways too wide an area. For all the reasons already stated. In terms of dogs on leads on Prom's, i regularly take my dog on the prom, at all times and in the company of other dogs, most dogs are on leads, however, when the prom is clear there seems no reasonable reason that a dog could not walk, unleashed, if under control. more interference and useless council employees enforcing it. Try education Q 11 as needs to be applied with common sense. Common sense A well-trained dog is under control off lead. I can see that uncontrolled dogs in cemeteries would be

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 155 undesirable, but in other areas I like to see dogs off lead. Information should be distributed-signs placed in situ. 'All highways' means people ion villages where there is no pavement could be unnecessarily restricted. MUST BE ENFORCED BY POLICE/CSOs-NOT COUNCIL STAFF 'reasonable reasons' You need to be careful not to alienate dog walkers As previously mentioned, whether a dog is on a lead or not makes no difference to a dog owner who is determined not to pick up his (or her) poo. As above these can be over restrictive and we are in danger of having nowhere to exercise dogs freely. If a dog is out of control, there are laws to cover it. If the dog is in control, what is the problem? As before, largely unenforceable. Punishes responsible owners and those who don't pick up can still not pick up whether their dog is on lead or not Keeping a dog on a lead is good because it then leaves no excuse for the owner not being fully responsible for the animal at all times. It makes more sense to designate all public open spaces as dog restraint areas, unless otherwise signed, and then provide dog exercise designations on appropriate areas. Then there is no room for doubt. a). Is too broad. Leads should be discretionary on country lanes. As to b). It should apply only to specified cemeteries. They should have to be on a lead if uncontrollable; however those who obey owners shouldn’t need a lead. If the set areas are widespread into remote countryside. How restrictive will this be? Dogs are either under control or not either off or on the lead. Not sure how much of a 'problem' this is The Promenade at Grange is plenty big enough to allow dogs to run or walk off the lead. Lack, absence or inadequacy of enforcement action. Well trained dogs do exactly as they should. Dogs should be kept in control-this may/should not ne necessary if properly trained. I fear it may get out of proportion I would want to see evidence that dogs not on leads are a problem in a specific area. Ineffective unless rigorously monitored. In sheep lambing areas dogs are often seen off leads despite all warnings. During avian breeding season all dogs should be excluded from shore lines or at least be on a short lead to protect ground nesting birds. They should be prevented from chasing wildlife and intimidating non dog owners. Who will enforce it and how? Their dogs are some elder people’s only companions and require exercise. If these older and relatively or actually infirm people collect their dogs faeces and dispose of theirs safely, they should not be prosecuted from letting them off leads on promenades. Not properly thought through by persons (e.g. vet surgeons) with wide experience of dog (and human) behaviour. Over use of this direction when not really necessary and dogs are under control. The principle should remain that 'dogs are kept under close control'. A well trained dog off the lead is not a problem, a badly trained and out of control dog on a lead is. This is absolutely a bad order for quiet rural roads, which may not even have a defined boundary. The above is ambiguous as to whether green lanes (a colloquial name for a road which is technically a highway as much as a tarmacked road) would be covered and how much it would cost to make people aware that these routes were or were not covered by the orders. This is a sledgehammer of an order to solve a problem. At busy times of year this order is essential but dogs should be able to use promenades off lead at quiet times of year (as happens elsewhere). In bad weather often the only place the elderly or infirm can allow off lead exercise is a promenade

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 156 too restrictive Some dogs are so well trained that they walk to heel anyway without a lead. Some people will use extending leads and these may cause a trip hazard to the unwary, to children and cyclists. It’s the owners of the dogs we should be concerned about, dogs don’t know any better. Owners warned first time. There needs to be areas that dog owners can freely exercise their dogs. Dogs should not be in cemeteries at all. Promenades are pedestrian areas and any problems caused by dogs should be resolvable by 1, 2, 3 controls. Nice to see well behaved dogs enjoying freedom. Just because a dog is on a lead this does not mean it is well behaved or no longer a problem. Dogs do not have to be on leads to be under control It should not apply to Grange-over-Sands because it's a long promenade and not by a road and the railway is fenced off. Only if the dog is playing freely on the shore and then runs on to the promenade. In such a case, if the owner takes immediate steps to collect it and put it on a lead, that should not be considered a committed offence. As above. The promenade is one of few places available to exercise dogs off leads but under control. It won’t stop people choosing to ignore their dogs poo, but will prevent dogs running, which is their natural exercise. In Grange the people who don’t pick up after dogs do so through choice, not because they aren’t aware of their dogs. They will stand with their dog on a lead, watch them defecate and walk away. Doesn’t solve problem. Enforcement by? It unfairly discriminates against responsible dog owners who have trained their dogs to obey commands and who have control over their animals in public places. If dogs can behave properly off-lead on the promenades, that's fine. They should be on-lead beside roads, as a matter of safety. How do you make people comply? Just that it should only be used where absolutely necessary so that dog owners don't have to feel got at or singled out. There is room in the area for dogs and people as long as the dog owners act responsibly at all times regarding their duties of supervision and clearing up To all above-dogs should NOT be exercised in a cemetery. Some people take their dogs out with no lead whilst they ride their bikes. Not all roads or footways need this order. Enforcement Does it mean footpaths? Why should I put a dog on a lead on a pavement/prom if it is well behaved This is Kendal. Why is it necessary? I don't think it’s a big problem. There really isn't dog faeces everywhere and I haven't heard of anyone being terrorised or attacked by a dog in Kendal. Surely one of the reasons for the parks existence is for dog exercising and training. Dog walkers are eyes in the parks and must prevent a lot of vandalism and bullying - they are often the only people in the park. The law abiding dog owners will no doubt obey the law (they're the ones who don't cause a problem) but others won't so the effectively the law abiders will be punished Responsible owners need areas to exercise their dog. Irresponsible owners will always exist. This order is unnecessarily restrictive. Not all dog owners live near to a suitable field & some are elderly or partially disabled. This order would mean that many people would be unable to exercise their dogs properly, and thus their dogs would face a lifetime of inadequate exercise. If doesn't go far enough. For public safety and enjoyment, dogs need to be under close control in all public areas. Since the majority of owners fail to exercise sufficient levels of control then all dogs should be on a lead. Proposed offence d) needs clear definition of "appropriate" for enforcement to be feasible. If a dog is well behaved and controlled it appears unnecessary to require a lead. The possible closure of the playing field site in Grange. Totally unnecessary and out of order! Countryside and farmland where there is no stock and dogs can run free. Dogs need exercise off

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 157 leads. Dogs should be under control whether on or off the lead. How much will you spend on policing it? Failure to enforce especially at unsocial hours. The prom at Grange need not fall into this category. If people cleared up after their dogs it would work fine. See Q6. It’s all a bit police state and i fear people are being criminalised for owning a dog. Most dogs need off-lead exercise, and if this is disallowed in most areas, owners will either have to forego exercising their dogs (not healthy for dogs or owners) or will have to travel in cars to somewhere that they can let their dogs off the lead (not good for the environment). Again, the responsible majority would be punished for the failings of the few. Young healthy dogs need freedom to exercise, they should not be allowed to cause a nuisance, but I believe this order is an overreaction. It will be cruel to my canine friends. Who will police dogs on promenade in Grange not on leads? Again, how can it possibly be policed?? Can we also have the same amount of land available for exercising dogs off lead please? If asked by a member of the public to put their dog on a lead - there being no control officer anywhere nearby - they may well be met with rudeness and aggression. A sledgehammer to crack a nut. Wasted money. a). Is too broad. Leads should be discretionary on country lanes. As to b). it should apply only to specified cemeteries. lack of authorised effect There should be discretion, it is unnecessary for dogs to be on leads at times of day when the general public are not frequenting the area, for instance in early mornings along Grange Prom Don't stop all owners and pets for minority, police with common sense, thought. Who will police the police complaint procedure? Risk of encroaching restrictions into areas previously used freely. Again, dogs allowed to roam, unsupervised 'homeless for the day'-Dog wardens-fines-micro chipping. GUIDE AND HEARING DOGS, SEARCH AND RESCUE DOGS MUST BE EXEMPT. It should be the responsibility of the owners to put their dog on a lead as and when necessary. I have an old Labrador who walks quietly and sensibly beside me. He is often approached by children and other dog lovers. I also have a young border collie who is much more lively and is put on a lead on the promenade. 1) Apply only to highways and their associated pavements/ footpaths and bridleways. 2) All dogs on lead defecating in such areas will have their faeces removed by the person controlling the dog, to be taken home or placed in a receptacle provided by SLDC of Parish Council. Popular footpaths excluded e.g. the Canal head area and allotments Footpaths not alongside roads should remain places where dogs can be exercised off the lead, no matter who funds their maintenance. This rule must be enforced and should include those owners who allow their dogs to wander around in driveways with open access to the pavement and road. A dog should be under control in these areas, but walking on a country footpath is a lead required? On a quiet lane? My dog is trained to walk next to me. She does not run around the path, but keeps close to her 'family'. In cemeteries she walks with us, but in the narrow paths between graves, this is safer without a lead, but she is still under control. On the promenades she is on and off the leads. Depends on numbers of people, wildlife and if we are about to go back to the car, to keep her out of the lake. Again, under appropriate control is the issue, not if she is on a lead. I think that each dog is a different case; you cannot say that all dogs need to be on a lead in a particular area, I would not let my dog off the lead in the centre of Kendal, but I do walk the lanes in the more rural areas on South Lakeland with my dog off lead. When I go to Grange she trots alongside me off lead, when she is being a nuisance to anyone, I call her back and put her on the lead. I think that the majority of Dog owners are far more responsible and aware than you think. My comments are the same as previously made. In relation to footpaths and promenades it is

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 158 sometimes easier to walk with a dog off the lead when it is very busy. Include footpaths/bridle paths to reduce sheep worrying on farmland. Enforceability. I am strongly against this order, particularly with regard to public highways and pavements. Whilst I can see why you might want to introduce something like this in e.g. town centres, there are many quiet and little used country lanes and smaller villages where people walk their dogs off the lead in a perfectly controlled manner and with complete responsibility and consideration for others. To introduce a blanket ban is, to me, way too draconian and over the top. I am against introducing any measure that takes away freedoms from the majority of responsible people, and strongly believe that instead you should focus on measures that enable council officers and the police to tackle those few who cause problems. If this means that members of the public are able to report issues that they see/encounter, then so be it. Please do not take away freedoms from responsible owners and their dogs. Keeping dogs on lead on promenades should only be between certain times of day such as 9am to 6pm and only in busy seasons. Most of the Promenades are quite and people enjoy giving their dog a good run. People need to train the dog and that should be a law as because of lack of training people have problems with their dogs Owners should have some discretion based on how well trained their dog is. Set areas. Increase over time. For many disabled people (like me) it is difficult to manage leads on believe me and speed; promenade area vital (particularly) Why should responsible dog owners be limited from access to public areas? My concern is that this may be the thin edge of the wedge, and once implemented will be extended to cover many areas where dogs are exercised. There will be no check in place to stop this as SLDC ignore public wishes (See New Road Car Park) anyway, and only carry out public consultation because they need to be able to be seen to do so. Responsible owners who have trained their dog(s) to walk to heel will be unfairly penalised. Insisting that dogs are kept on leads will not prevent them fouling in these areas, so this order would not achieve the aim of this consultation. Responsible dog owners make sensible decisions about when it is safe to allow their dogs off the lead, (and will clean up after them) and requiring them to keep them on leads in these areas will make it difficult for some people to exercise and enjoy their dogs. It seems unnecessary to have dogs on leads on EVERY highway and footway. If it's a safety issue cats can also run in front of cars so should they be on leads? If it’s because they could be a nuisance, surely responsible dog owners keep their dogs on leads if they can’t trust them. The few who don't could be identified by your officers, confronted and an order placed on those individuals. Please don't make a blanket ban and punish us all for the inconsiderate few. If this were introduced the lead itself would become an obstruction, and possibly a danger. Other pedestrians could trip over a lead, or a cyclist could have an accident if a dog moved into their path and could not get out of the way due to the lead. Also it is generally easier to identify a dog that may need to be given a 'wide berth' if it is on a lead. Alternatively the majority of dogs not on a lead are fairly safe. If all dogs are on leads it will not be possible to make that distinction. Linked to Q9-dogs should be allowed in areas mentioned BUT ALWAYS ON A LEAD. Provided they only cover the areas shown on the maps Again policing and monitoring areas provides expectations and if not properly maintained hence adverse effects, particularly (can't read text) Provided the rules aren't changed down the line. There are lots of highways and footways maintained by public funding where dogs should be allowed to be off the lead Again my concern is about enforcement. A dog lead should be defined as a fixed maximum length of up to 1.5M I feel as if our dog would have to be on a lead at all times, We keep him on a lead on footpaths, or if live-stock are about. Even this is a waste of my time answering this questionnaire. I am really upset at my local

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 159 representation and liken it to something out of a George Orwell script where I need direction from my superiors. Heaven forbid they may be wrong. Ruling for ruling sake. Move on and stop running people's lives. Once again it's how do you police such things? Could cost a fortune. Then will it be a case of prosecuting people just to cover the cost of policing it? Only that it may not be backed up and supported once in place. Who will enforce it? You will presumably need to employ some staff? I have myself politely asked other dog walkers in Parkside Road cemetery to put their dog on a lead with some success but I believe, from speaking to one of your dog enforcement officers, that cemetery staff have been less successful and have been assaulted. The major problem is dog mess and there is a minority of owners who will not clear up after their dogs, even if the dog is on a lead and does it right in front of them. Footpaths crossing land where the landowner requests the order to be in place should also be included Concerned that it will extend so that dogs are not allowed off their leads, what about cats? the above yes, but if you say castle hill and parks, no. Provided the dog is under control i see no reason to be on a lead at all times. One more constraint on private lives by public bodies. Enforcement? Sufficient enforcement? As with the other orders who will enforce them? Dogs are generally well behaved unless upset by malevolent people. dogs on a lead are not necessarily under control the requirement should be to have your dog under control either on or off the lead this would discriminate against responsible dog owners those who are not responsible probably wouldn't take any notice anyway This is a prejudiced and ill considered 'order' and clearly those who have drawn it up know little about keeping or training dogs themselves. Dogs on lead by highway/promenade where this is as much for safety so a dog doesn't run into the road is of no concern. However there is no reason for dogs to be on lead elsewhere as long as a dog fouling order is in place and enforced. Dogs need adequate access to open spaces for their exercise and psychological wellbeing. This is a requirement of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and to limit access in this way is to put owners in breach of the act. Why stop at A.B. & C, make it all public access places. There are many lanes and other areas within the local area that are suitable to exercise dogs off the lead sadly. Levens Flat for instance. Prominent signage will be necessary at first and it must be strictly enforced too general I think it should be extended to include popular walking areas across farmland and also farmland where dogs have killed lambs Only the cost of re-enforcement order. Dogs need to run free to play keep fit and do what dogs do but do need to be kept in control. Common sense needed. Must be clear signage if this is to work. I exercise both myself and my small dog, who loves to chase a ball, by walking on Grange over Sands promenade & meet others doing the same. It is a social event for both of us. When both dogs are on leads they cannot play. Unlike many people that I see now I cannot ride a bike and allow the dog to chase along behind. Cyclists race each other as fast as their bikes allow. The promenade was developed for walking and this is what we like to do. Live and let live is best. Let us and the animals walk free within reason. Allow prams & small bikes & cycles. Please do not allow the proms to become racing circuits. The problem is that owners are not prepared to understand and manage their dog. A blanket requirement for leads is a hammer to crack a nut, and will dissuade many dog owners who can control their animal like they control their children will be dissuaded from visiting south lakes if such an order

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 160 were in place. I think that this should be used sparingly and sensitively and I would not want the application of this to be a priority for the allocation of funds. Enforcement. Restrictive blanket orders that cannot allow appropriateness/choice. I thought it was already illegal to walk dogs unleashed on or beside a public highway, and most cemeteries have notices saying that dogs should be on leads, so I don't understand why any further rules are necessary. The complete exclusion of dogs from cemeteries is unfair to the bereaved who may wish to take their once-shared pet to visit a grave. Again, common sense should prevail and it should be sufficient for dogs to be on leads in cemeteries and any faeces deposited during the visit should be bagged and removed by the dog owners. With regard to promenades, it would be sensible to keep dogs under control but a 2 metre lead doesn't allow much scope for a good wander and a sniff around. Flexi leads should be permitted on promenades thereby ensuring the dogs are still under control but with a little greater freedom. Who is going to police this "Dogs on Leads Order" how much is it going to cost the local area will it improve the dog foul situation? The owners of dogs should know when to put their animal on a lead, some are very responsible other not so. Why for example should a dog be on a lead in a cemetery, the residents are not likely to complain? If there is to be a law it should be ALL highways and foot ways not just those financed by public funding. However there must be ample free space provided for animals to be properly exercised. Some dogs simply don't need a lead; owners of dogs out of control should be instructed to put them on one.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 161

Any other comments

724 comments

Public urination/defecation should be total ban not reliant on boundaries, which may prevent enforcement where there is a blatant breach i.e. just inside 30mph limits. Any legislation that is introduced needs to be actively enforced. There should be a visible presence on the streets by dog wardens to enforce the law and impose the fine. The level of the fine should be consistent as at the moment it varies on warning notices where no fine is mentioned to ones where the sum of £1000 is listed. There should also be greater provision of dog waste bins which should be frequently emptied. The South lakes is a tourist resort with visitors from the UK and overseas. The state of some of the paved areas and grassed public places can be a disgrace at times all due to irresponsible dog owners. Many individuals’ incomes depend upon the tourist trade it would be a travesty if this was threatened by a few thoughtless people. The permitted footpaths could also be put at risk by dogs being allowed to worry sheep and cattle. Increase number of litter bins and signage to encourage less littering Good 24 hour public toilet facilities should be available to support enforcement of proposed by-laws Street cleaning is good and needs to be maintained If there were public toilets, people would not have to urinate on the street. Surprised that the fine is so low! Must be adequate public toilets. Most of these problems are due entirely to lack of facilities caused by mismanagement by councils of their employees. I've never seen anyone defecating in public. Sometimes people are genuinely desperate for the loo and there aren’t enough public toilets. Despite numerous notices posted throughout the area where i live, they are frequently discarded. In the 17 years I have been living here I have rarely seen any police foot patrol. Sadly most incidences are probably alcohol related.... However not enough public toilets have led this middle aged lady to contemplate urinating in the street! My son with IBS has also been caught short. Hope illness related incidences not prosecuted. The only exception I would make is for parents with young children, especially when potty training, when it may occasionally be necessary to find a discrete place sometimes for the child to relieve themselves. The Council has closed so many public toilets; shops are not always willing or able to provide toilet facilities, and when a young child says they need to go, they usually can't wait for their parent to search round town to find a toilet. I hope no one would be fined in such circumstances. This is RICH! Close public loos then fine the public when taken short. Definitely a SLDC initiative. You couldn’t make it up I suggest you open the public loos. However if it’s a drunk performing in the middle of Kendal (at 1am) High street fair enough take action. Exclude parents assisting young children, and people who are trying to be discreet behind a wall, tree etc. It is one of those things with no clear answer the person may be ill or infirm. Someone with bowel cancer urgently needs the loos, £500 penalty. Someone collapses with a stroke/heart attack and is incontinent of faeces-bads of sympathy and call an ambulance. You could bring in a Public Urination byelaw but how will you ever police it to the point it stops people doing it? No point in laws if you can't enforce them. If people go on drinking as they are now more problems will appear, both to themselves and to others. Drinking must be the biggest reason people urinate in the street. Make it less acceptable to drink as much (as with smoking) and urinating in the street might reduce. It might also help violence and crime. Maybe more publicity, over a period of time, in general about drinking, might help people realise what they are doing to themselves, and their families. We do support the above byelaw, but over the last few years we have noticed the decline in public toilets in Kendal and surrounding areas either being closed or knocked down. We only know of one set of toilets in Kendal which is in the Westmorland Shopping Centre, so if you are at the other end of town this will cause a bit of a problem. We have noticed over the last few weeks that the Kirkland

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 162 toilets have been knocked down, I know of no other toilets in that area. As this is supposed to be the gateway to the lakes, what will visitors think when they don’t know the area. Sometimes it is necessary to do in a cafe to use the toilet therefore you're asked to buy something which isn’t always possible. This is also a big problem for disabled people. One third of Rothay Park is taken up by your suggestions, seems drastic for the amount of times used for football and the people who walk their dogs a few times a day. Cleaning up after a dog also means the responsible disposal of the bag of faeces, too often they appear just behind a gate or fence or hang in bushes. It appears disparity between the fine for a dog compared with a human. With regard people fouling the streets, I am in favour of this being curtailed. However, there are times 'when you got to go, you got to go', so I would hope SLDC will ensure public facilities are available in our towns to provide for people's needs. Need to keep public toilets OPEN. When residents have asked the man from 3 Greengate Lane to put his dogs on leads he becomes intimidating in language and stance. He has a full grown Rottweiler and a young Doberman. Surely they should be on a lead on the playing field. To exclude dogs from certain areas does not yet.... of the dog faeces problem- it just moves it elsewhere. Your measures are short-sighted, discriminatory and unreasonable. Exception likely to be appropriate in the case of young children (urination only). Good (or at least adequate!) public toilet provision is important to reducing this problem. A lot more bins spread out more would help a lot of dog owners then there would be no excuse! Hope this will apply to A590 through Swarthmoor as this is a 40mph. God knows why!! What about lack of access to public toilets especially evenings and nights? Many are charging 20p. Some cant/won’t pay. Sooner the better throwing bags of faeces into undergrowth is also a filthy habit. All dogs in any public area should be on a lead and muzzled, thereby presenting no threat to others. Areas around / in the close vicinity of schools should be included in the dogs on leads and dog exclusion orders. If a Urination in the Street Order is introduced then SLDC must also provide adequate, FREE public conveniences. This is not currently the case in Kendal. Problem is largely one of policing not lack of legal power. Keep public toilets open and target policing at times when problems occur-presumably late at night drunkenness. I'm concerned about people policing this having little understanding of dog’s behaviour and needs. Police the dog fouling issue better and review. Education campaign for dog owners rather than legislation. In our area (LA23 1DL) the amount of litter is excessive (currently we tidy up). Are there any provisions to deal with this problem? Public toilets should be open from 8am. I hope this order goes ahead as it's a disgrace in my area with the amount of dog poo left on pathways, especially when I have children you end up falling in it when playing. There is not enough availability for people to use the toilet in towns. If you are homeless-what can you do-toilets and sinks should be available for FREE-for such people and visitors to the towns etc. I wonder if any new law will be enforced now that individuals do not take personal responsibility people do their own thing i.e. dropping litter, cycling on pavements, parking on pavements etc. As a wheelchair user I often find dog faeces attached to the wheels which I cannot clean off myself and so have to ask a friend. Children who desperately need to urinate should be exempt. The dog fouling issue is not a massive problem for South Lakeland. The 'dogs on leads' initiative is an essential move. Instead of victimising those who have dogs or those that come to the region with dogs. SLDC would be far better supporting an education campaign to ensure those minorities who do not pick up after their dogs are left with no alternative. The scant resources that the council has to enforce this are evident as many stickers are already on street sides warning of fines. enforcement officers would be more useful spending their limited time monitoring and looking after recreational areas such as Nobles rest in Kendal, which on most days the debris such as glass bottles,

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 163 paper, fast food rubbish are discarded by groups of youths creating a sea of litter and broken bottles in a family area. There is a need for public toilets to be kept open. There are now often no facilities for the general public to use so this problem will inevitably get worse. Dog owners should take the plastic bag etc that the dog poo is put in home to dispose of it and not put in peoples gardens and trees especially in woods We live down a very rural lane- it is the main dog walking area in the village- every day we have dogs fouling constantly. We have children living in the area, some are good and take the dog faeces in a bag many do not!!! The lake district is known as a dog friendly area. I worry that walkers with dogs will go elsewhere and we will lose visitors to the area. I feel that we risk restricting the rights of a dog owner to enjoy responsibly exercising their dog in public places when it is appropriate to do so. I often walk my dog along the side of the lake and when appropriate I let him off the lead to chase sticks which I throw into the lake. Both of us enjoy this and I am very careful not to allow my dog to run anywhere near to anyone else as I am conscious that some people have a fear of dogs. As a local resident and tax payer, I would not like this right taken away. Again heavy fines, more police. Although we live in a village the lane where our house is (North Heads Lane) is 'Dog Alley'. There is an endless parade of people taking their dogs to do their business along the lane. The rural problem should not be ignored. Make dog licenses more expensive and enforceable so that only responsible owners will have dogs. If dogs are to be kept on a lead on the prom and banned from the memorial playing field. Where are they to go to play with their dog i.e. throw a ball etc. if they do not have a car to get them up on the fells? I am talking about GRANGE. Why mire fine for human urination (500GBP) than dogs (1000GBP) I am strongly in favour of responsible dog ownership but please don't penalise the vast majority of good owners. Dog fouling should be tackled vigorously. But please don't make a dog on leads order-it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut!! I'd be a bit more sympathetic to offenders as SLDC no longer provides public toilets. I think this was a very sad decision. I cannot believe that anyone defecates on the streets age matter of choice. It is ridiculous that so many toilets have been closed. People (especially old people) are often unable to find a toilet if walking a dog it is sometimes impossible. Reopen public toilets! You're taking the pleasure away from a lot of old folk, which is only pleasure and companion is a dog, who can throw a ball but maybe not be able to walk very far. You've taken two pleasures away from me already- water skiing on Windermere and talking to kids. Kids and parents seem to be neurotic nowadays. This survey is very biased, because there’s more folk without dogs than with dogs. The council should not have closed public toilets it is a public disgrace. Looking at maps - no mention of Abbott Hall Park??? I agree that dog fouling in the street is not acceptable, there is little worse. The controls here are required and workable, but to try and carry those over into the rural areas is insane. We should NOT close public toilets- perhaps this has made the problem greater- older men in particular have problems!! SLDC must be prepared to introduce a dog warden and dog pound to make sure they are effective. Not to do so would make such orders toothless and make its bark more than bite! Public urination is problem i have witnessed in daytime but no surprising when SLDC has closed so many public toilets so they are responsible in part for this problem. The council should be making all efforts to keep public toilets open to reduce the problem-are there any statistics to show whether there is an increase with closure of public toilets. Other signs put up in places most often used in town centre and/or evidence that culprits will be identified-e.g. cameras they can see. It was obvious to the majority of us that when you closed public toilets you were not solving a problem, you were creating one. It is all very well having the use of town shops' facilities, but this is no use when the shops are shut, as on Sundays and at night time. The provision of public toilets is essential in a civilised society to prevent public health issues and to maintain public decency. It is not our wish to urinate in the street,

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 164 but left with no other option, what do you expect? Cost is not the prime consideration, just think it through. There wouldn't be such a problem with this if you re-opened all the public toilets that you've shut over recent years!!! Dog fouling makes Kendal such a contradictory place to live. A beautiful town on the edge of the most popular national park in the country, and on nearly every street there's dog faeces. We've lived in big cities in the past (Berlin, Bloemfontein and Sheffield) but Kendal is the dirtiest unfortunately. It's bad for tourism, and it's bad for the local residents who have to bypass it day-in day-out. How it can be tolerated around schools is beyond me. Don't waste time spraying it pink either - rather pick it up. Why are SLDC so keen to close toilets in towns? Think it might be a male problem too much beer etc.!!!! PROSECUTE ALL OFFENDERS. Ensure that all cases are prosecuted. Refer to Q.6. It should be included in dog control byelaws that it is an offence not to have a dog registered with a vets practice and should also be an offence underdog control byelaw not to have a dog chipped electronically. (Dogs deserve better educated owners). Traffic wardens could do various other jobs while on their rounds. Also the general public could do more regarding dog fouling and litter. Dogs can be seen tied up at grocers etc on occasions I fail to see owners can clear up if they have 2/3 bags of groceries. Pity cat owners cannot take the cat for walkies so they can clean up after them instead of a gardener finding it when planting, at least a dogs mess can be seen. The order in order to be enforced needs to be patrolled otherwise it will not be use, people will and do ignore it as there is no one to enforce it!! Give them a large fine. While supporting the prosecution of persons fouling the streets. The closure of public toilets seems ludicrous if this is a real problem. Most people would prefer to use a toilet if available. Other councils seem to manage, perhaps they don’t waste money on wide pavements currently used as car parks (Kirkland). It would have been good to have distributed this questionnaire to all houses in SLDC or made it more widely available as I think these issues are important, but I only found the questionnaire by chance in the library. People who clean up after dog will do so if dog loose or on lead. People who won’t clean up after dog won’t clean up whether dog loose or on lead. How are you going to fund enforcement? You could have spent consultation money or enforcement blitz. Already people ignoring no cycling signs in parks. Keeping dogs on leads will not stop dog fouling-offenders don’t care you must enforce existing law otherwise its just a paper exercise. I am appalled that responsible owners won’t be able to play ball with their dog in the park, important puppy socialisation. Older people won’t be able to walk their small often elderly dogs on Grange Prom-but people cycle fast along there, drop litter. all dogs should be banned from public parks and playing fields at all times, There needs to be reasonable access to public toilet facilities. It beggars belief that such a measure should be considered in the wake of the closure of so many public toilets. I can’t believe people defecate in the street and that is not already something the police can tackle! I do not support it if there are no (open!) public toilets within a reasonable distance for the person concerned. Only that you must prosecute if this becomes law - it's not enough to have by laws unless they are put into action. Pregnant Women have by law the right to urinate anywhere You can't progress this until the issue of public toilets has been resolved. SLDC to its shame has closed many of them and people will therefore have the defence that they were caught short with nowhere to go. Having said that, urination and defecation in the streets is revolting and should be dealt with. But there's no point in having a tough bye-law if it can't be effectively enforced. Let's get

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 165 back to civilised values and have decent loos for all instead of becoming like a Third World Country. Litter is also a problem here. There are a number of motor homes that have appeared on the road to the Football Club in Ambleside. The land is owned by SLDC and the owner of Miller Field. A great deal of rubbish has appeared in the beck running alongside these homes .e.g. Matrasses, plastic containers etc. Are they legally parked? If they pay to park why is the rubbish having to be cleared by local volunteers? Please investigate. Simple solutions need to be tried before draconian measures are taken. Whilst dog fouling is a problem in this area, it is most definitely made worse by the Council's lack of provision of bins. Finding a bin these days is not easy. The proposed exclusion orders are far too severe and will only serve to create new problems. We don't live in a police state and other measures should be attempted before orders such as those proposed are brought into force. No attempt, as far as I am aware, has been made by the Council to improve awareness of the issues faced by people with dogs off lead. The issues, I suspect, are more pertinent to other dog owners who do keep their dogs on lead rather than non-dog owners, and promotion of general good dog ownership should be considered before any of the proposed measures are taken. More toilets open to the public particularly at night. Need to be aware of people suffering from severe prostate problems which doctors refuse to operate on. NEED URGENTLY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT BARKIKNG DOGS AND DOGS OUT OF CONTROL. Our Victorian ancestors built public loos because of the problem in Q13. You have closed most of them. ______is a duty of the local authority it should provide facilities where this is a problem. Open up public toilets. Majority of dog owners are responsible people. All holiday areas have large areas of beach available for dogs South Lakeland will be unavailable to all dog owners; these are supposed to places for all the public. All beaches including large public ones, i.e. Bournemouth, have large areas designated for dogs to run free. Grange will lose a large amount of visitors who caravan with their dogs. As noted previously, you need to provide officers to monitor the situation and enforce the rules. If somebody was fined and it was made public then it would deter others from flouting the law. Applying bye-laws to countryside/rural areas is pointless as they cannot be policed We have a major problem of human defecation from fly campers and fishermen, the police are helping us with patrols as are the Environment Agency but assistance from public health officials occasionally if we have a severely bad incident may help Send dog patrol around Endmoor Village, i.e. playing fields, play area, pathways to lower village. Dogs just running around everywhere. Not enough public toilets- especially for families with small children being toilet trained! Don’t see how you can stop a dog urinating. Do support cleaning up fouling. As the ridiculous councillors have closed so many toilets there is no wonder at people being forced to urinate where they can, and it will get worse? These are tourist areas and one is absolutely ashamed of where we live, when asked by strangers where there is a toilet, especially for children and the elderly, many of the latter suffering from bladder problems. It is more than a disgrace that all the public toilets in Kendal are being closed. And also the one in shopping centre are charging to use it. There is about 3 places between 5pm to 10pm then no more until 7am or 8am. Anyone badly needing a toilet because of medical reasons like me. It is a disgrace that all public toilets in Kendal have been closed. Between Mon-sat 9-5 there are toilets available. After that there are about 3 places available until about 11pm. After that, nothing. Waiting for a coach at 6am is no joke. What do we pay council tax for? When you close public toilets public urination will occur. SLDC are wholly responsible for this consequence and should be reprimanded for their incompetence in not providing toilet facilities in major tourist areas and town centres. Provision of public toilets would help. As usual, the well-behaved many are going to suffer because of the selfish, lazy, ignorant few-better to stamp them out but requires EFFORT.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 166

We no longer have a dog, but when out walking him he was frequently frightened by dogs towering over him. A few people pulled their dogs away but many were too ignorant & selfish to do anything. On occasions I asked people to take control of their dogs & received varying amounts of disgust at my request. We adopted our dog when my father died & I soon realised why he had bought & carried a walking stick! It's not the dogs who are at fault, it's the owners. Many dogs are not under any sort of control. Once on the riverside path we were asked by a woman to stop walking because her dog insisted on following us despite her telling him to come. We did because we were approaching the road, but we shouldn't have had to. But there are not enough public toilets NONE in Kendal open in scheme before 9am or after 11pm. After these hours what do we do if out and about? Perhaps pubs like the Commodore should be more aware of how their customers are behaving in the car park outside and perhaps there should be CCTV introduced in and around car parks and other areas where people hang out. It appears to be a small number of irresponsible dog owners who don't pick up and these orders are aimed at ALL dog owners whether responsible or not and this feels wrong. If we can somehow target the irresponsible ones with properly policed areas with fines given then this would in my view soon stop. I can't agree with the public urination policy, as the lack of public toilets in South lakes is a HUGE problem. I have 3 children under 5, and cannot take them into Kendal shopping because of the lack of suitable, open public toilets! Please can the notices for dogs to be kept on a lead be renewed particularly in the Wattsfield Lane area? I’m furious so no, i think I’ve said all i need to, it’ll be ignored as usual So that's it basically you are picking on all dog owners responsible or not, I frequently pick up after others both dog fouling and litter. The mess around recycling sites is terrible probably because you haven't got around to recycling plastic or cardboard in the blue bins yet. Yet only questions about dog mess and dog control. That is not cleaning up the streets. I feel a FOI coming in from me to ask how much money is being spent on this initiative. What a waste of money. It’s funny I started this survey off thinking "oh good something is being done to help keep the area cleaner" but it was all about dog control, coming from a council that no longer bothers to employ a dog warden. It’s the same about SLDC saying they care about climate change and then making their carbon adviser redundant. When the first person is fined why isn’t he/she named and put on the first page of the local paper. The increase of urination in the street in my opinion is due to the council closing the public toilets. It’s no good the council complaining when if one needs a pee the only option now is to find a quiet spot and do it. I recently attended the SLDC road show in Grange-Over-Sands and discussed, in particular, the orders that might apply to the memorial playing fields at Yew Tree road in Grange. I exercise my dog every day on the boundary areas of the children's play area and the football pitch and I am concerned that this facility might be prohibited to my dog in the future. I was advised by your representative that only the football pitch itself and the fenced-in children's play area could be prohibited to dogs, but not their boundary areas. I commented that any future SLDC notices displayed to explain this need to be clear and unambiguous. I was then advised to write to you and express my concerns in this regard. Thank you. All dogs need place for free regular exercise, control by handler necessary. Councils should allow some public area for this, as not everyone can walk the fells daily. Dog owners pay rates too. I strongly support all these proposals and wish you well. However, due to the shortage of police and local authority cuts I doubt if I will see reports of convictions in the Westmorland gazette. I hope that I am proved wrong! See my comments above about enforcement. Most dog fouling occurs in late evening/early morning when few are about. "Blitzing" an area with an adequate team of officers (who will have to work unsocial hours) coupled with 'naming and shaming' might achieve some success. See question 5-dogs who are unaccompanied are responsible for 90% of the problem. Try to achieve control of these matters in the most...... Method. Affording full control may be too much socially and financially.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 167

Public toilets need to be available and well sign posted. Re-define within 30mph limits so 30mph is changed to say 20 as many parish councils/government want the legislation may be challenged and proved defective. Re-word to make effective- i.e. in village areas/urban areas. Why can’t we all live in peace with each other and give each other love, respect and honour. Accept things as they are and flow with it giving everyone more freedom to be who they are all this is just more dogma, control and restriction on a beautiful planet we should enjoy. Policy of closing toilets is wrong. Should be more, not fewer, especially in heavily used tourist area. Proper toilet provision should be a priority with economies elsewhere instead. Take example of Guernsey: benches uncrowned yet all have free parking, a kiosk (cafe) and clean toilets. SLDC should have comparable provision. The only way to control the dog owners who ignore picking up dog dirt and not using dog leads is to have a dog warden paid by dog owners paying a dog license. Anything else will just be a waste of time and tax payers’ money. As a dog owner I always pick up dog mess up after my dog but I don’t see how you can stop a dog from urinating, all you can do is try to take it somewhere the public don’t go. a). Dog worrying animals-people should be banned from owning dogs. b). Horse owners should be expected to clean up after horses have fouled public places. Serious issue in rural areas especially. Other than streets or footpaths-areas particularly prone to dog fouling in Kendal that need action are: - Gooseholme, Castle Howe, Castle Hill, Maudes Meadow, Abbott Hall Park. Community toilet facilities should be more obviously signed as such. Gooseholme, Kendal-managed by SLDC. This area is used by many dogs each morning, followed on sunny afternoons by many children and young people playing games and having picnics. Obviously this can be unpleasant or even dangerous. Dogs should be excluded from April to October. Something should be done about children/teens throwing their drinks cans/sweetie wrappers etc away on their way from school a bigger problem than dog fouling as it least that decays with time unlike plastic wrapping or tin cans. Two men sep incidents. Queens Road-11am against wall. Footpath into serpentine woods 3.30pm What about small children when caught short out of range of public toilets? Made it worse by closing toilets making it difficult for people on water tablets etc. Key again to q13 will be enforcement. How can it be? Only put leads on by road or ion public footpaths. Education of dog fouling should be taught to all children and adults as soon as they obtain a dog and fines for such occurrences of fouling in public areas should be increased a lot!! Dogs will pee wherever impossible to control, how will this happen??? I agree with all of these orders and expect that the same attention is given to the disposal of bottles, cans, plastics take away food boxes and picnic rubbish that i see on my dog walk. If they stop charging and closing public toilets the problem shouldn’t be as much. The council should not have closed public toilets people have nowhere to go to use the toilet, particularly on Sundays and evenings. The closure of public toilets has not helped. And even the ones that we still have are closed in the evening. We understand that vandalism is a major issue but there has to be some way of addressing this issue satisfactorily, i.e. CCTV at night and ensuring cash boxes are emptied every day. Again, vandalism needs to be treated seriously with major fines/punishment. I you have provided public toilets and then people urinate in the streets they should be arrested on the grounds of public decency and hygiene. If there are no public toilets then surely the council is guilty of failure of duty of care to me. I always thought this matter was illegal not to mention a health hazard. Children should not be exposed to this type of behaviour, its tantamount to indecent exposure.. chipping to contain details of training that the dog has gone through compulsory chipping with lose the dog penalty if not done

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 168

Speed limit is too restrictive. Suggest that it is where the indicated speed limit is 50mph or below. Otherwise Rayrigg Rd for example will become 'toilets'. This response is on behalf of Grange-over-Sands Town Council. We would like the final decisions to be based on evidence rather than perceptions. We would like to be consulted on the wording and actual proposed orders when at the relevant stage. I object to SLDC issuing blanket orders for the whole area. Each parish/town council has powers to introduce orders relevant to their own areas. I support the clean streets fouling of land order but the other two orders are excessive and onerous and will not help prevent dogs fouling streets. The order to keep dogs on lead on Grange promenade ...... the only flat area available for residents who are infirm, elderly or disabled to exercise their dogs off lead. Dogs should also not be excluded from the memorial field as a whole. The sports area should be fenced off. There is a footpath across the field giving much needed access from the main road to the promenade. I also feel that not enough thought has been given to how these orders will affect the tourist trade in the whole of sldc area. 1. This is a public nuisance; again the police need to act towards this filthy and disgusting conduct. Imagine opening your shop up and be touching human waste. 275 prosecutions is a joke for a year, this is an offence committed that times daily. 2. New legislation is a pointless waste of taxpayers’ money, if no-one is there or willing to enforce it! Perhaps if public conveniences were not closed down, we would not have such a problem. A public convenience is not a luxury but is essential for all. As a mother of young children I am disgusted by the amount of dog mess around especially in winter I am regularly cleaning shoes/pram wheels. Not enough people take adequate responsibility of their dogs. Maybe dog licensing should make a return to pay for more enforcement officers. There should be a higher fine Great idea Big problem-no toilets open-what are people supposed to do, spending in other areas may have to be looked into in order to keep these vital services we have come to expect-visitors can't be pleased. Stop closing public toilets Please can we have more litter bins around the town: they are desperately required outside Kendal College on Milnthorpe Road for instance? I do support strongly this urination in the street, but after saying that all the toilets are closing early or closed altogether. As someone older it is a disgrace that this is happening. It is nature older people need this facility. What the tourists-visitors think I don't know. It is the stupid unrealistic actions of the council which have brought about urination in the streets by closing all public toilets, after closing hours there are practically no facilities available for what is a normal human function. If you don't want people urinating on the streets, particularly late at night you need to re-open the public toilets. An increase in this is entirely due to the closure of facilities - surely you could have predicted the consequences of your actions and now you want to fine people when they sometimes have no option - unless everyone just stays at home. SLDC need enough enforcement officers to be able to deal with these if passed. 1 in each area is not enough. It is significant that reports of increase in public urination identification coincides with the council's closure of majority/all public toilets-leaving no acceptable alternative. Failure to enforce ...... is discrimination against law abiders. Cycling in prom in Grange-but allow children to ride. Open the public toilets then there would be no need for further legislation. put the people first it’s not all about cost. Q.13. When the council close public toilets, what do you expect. It makes the council look foolish. Prosecute anyone found urinating or defecating-however again who will be policing. How is this consultation being funded-NOT our council tax i hope. The provision of more bins to encourage more to pick up- not having anywhere to put it means a lot of people do not bother. Other authorities provide bins even in the most remote areas. Perhaps if enforcement officers were seen occasionally I might believe things might get better. Never seen one since dog warden returned.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 169

I don’t think dogs should be allowed on the grass area of Abbott Hall Park, Kendal. Anti-social behaviour should be punished. All anti-social behaviour should be the subject of strict bye laws! How can people who are "caught short" in a genuine manner escape punishment? Would PUDS byelaw include small children? I believe the problem of dog fouling could be eradicated if far more bins were to be provided and emptied regularly. Why does South Lakes not have any dedicated dog bins? Most other areas do. If these were to be provided there would not need to be so many 'authorised officials', thus saving money. This clean street order will not work it’s not the answer, especially in Grange there is no problem, on the field ask the football club. Please try to maintain and/replace public conveniences this would assist with the problem. Perhaps the incidence of public urination is linked to the closure of public lavatories in South Lakes. When you have to go you have to go somewhere! What about children? Other counties seem able to afford facilities. Yorkshire and Scotland are particularly good in this respect. Also their car parking regimes are very welcoming and tourist friendly, unlike Cumbria. I am pleased that the public is being contacted in this way. All responsible people are concerned about dog nuisance i.e. barking, jumping up etc. by dogs is startling and intolerable. Public urination- disgusting. Just a plea for some balance with the dog fouling order - please apply to towns and villages - quite right! - but please NOT on the commons and fells. We already have plastic bags of pooh hanging on trees and fences in our rural area - more distasteful and far less environmentally acceptable than training your dog to go off the path and letting it decompose naturally. My non dog owning friends also think the littering of plastic bags of pooh is much worse - takes years to decompose - surely this is not what we want.... Dog fouling much more of a problem than human fouling Public toilets need to be kept open and a safe way to pay for them be found if this is what is required to stop them from being closed. In general good ideas which do need implementing and enforcing. As long as a sensible approach is used. It would be nice to have 2 dog only play zones in the parks etc. Where people can exercise their dogs and dogs can play with each other freely. I have an MSc in companion animal behaviour counselling would happily participate in any areas of dog control work in Cumbria that you may feel would be useful. As \I have said before, most dog owners who love and care for their dogs, are responsible people. They have poo bags, their dogs are micro chipped, and they enjoy having a dog as a pet and a companion. I am deeply suspicious of 'blanket' laws being introduced which seem to penalise dog owners and dogs in general. Our dogs give us a great deal of pleasure, and it would be a sad day if harsh laws were introduced by people who just simply don't like dogs. there are a lot of people come down the back of Rydal road with their dogs but you never see the council come down and see the mess which is left on the grass and path. Public urination-what do you expect when you close all the public toilets get your act together SLDC. As a regular visitor with my dogs to the area I would be concerned if exercising dogs in open spaces was to be restricted as we enjoy the area very much. A group of us visit the area 2 or 3 times a year with a large number of dogs who enjoy the run together. Being responsible we would always keep to footpaths and keep dogs on leads in fields and on fells were livestock were present (already covered under worrying of livestock act) However I would be upset if further restrictions were to be placed on some of these areas. It goes without saying that dogs should be kept under proper control everywhere as the open spaces are for all to enjoy and not everyone appreciates the presence of a dog. However many of us can control our dogs reasonably without the need to have them restrained by a lead all the time. So hopefully some discretion of the officers enforcing the DCO's will be allowed? Don't miss this opportunity to tighten up the local by-laws on this important health issue The problem with urinating etc in streets would be less if there were more public toilets. SLDC should

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 170 not have closed the public toilets, and should have seen this problem coming. Dogs are off leads and free to roam on jubilee playing fields, they run after children and foul on this land. Owners do not remove the faeces. The dogs roam on to private property. Even those on leads do not get cleared up after. The number of public toilets should not be reduced. At present some are being demolished (Peppercorn Lane, Kendal) and others upgraded (20p cost acceptable) Rayrigg Road, Bowness visitors bring revenue and deserve conveniences. This is a very different thing from a dog doing so! In order for any order to stick, there have to be prosecutions (following formal warnings for dog fouling only). we do need public toilets we want visitors in our area and not just between opening hours so they can go to a public toilet Please think carefully before you make your decisions. We live in a tourist area and people come to the Lakes for enjoyment and freedom, which is slowly being reduced. The fouling laws need enforcing properly and more bins being made available. Maybe you could introduce area champions, people who are un-afraid of shopping the lazy inconsiderate dog owners who can't be bothered to clean up after their pet. Local registration of all dogs or at least something attached to the council tax details could be used. Very pleased this problem is being taken seriously. Our streets do not compare well to other European countries in terms of dog mess and litter. Any plans to tackle litter more comprehensively? Recent closures of public toilets have left people without facilities. SLDC have a lot to answer for. I travel a lot in the UK and this is not a problem elsewhere. 24 hours toilet facilities are hard to find. Why are dogs fined more than humans I suspect that public urination will become more of a problem with the closure by SLDC of public toilets (especially gents/small kids urinating around the back of closed public toilet blocks). As most public conveniences have gone where are people supposed to go in an emergency? DOG FOULING IS GETTING WORSE IN GRANGE; PEOPLE ARE VERY IGNORANT TO PICK UP AFTER THEIR ANIMALS. Puppies cannot manage Q13! All items discussed are due to behaviour of certain humans. I support more enforcement as long as carried out well and fairly. Would like to see more bins in some areas and would really like to see human litter tackled with as much effort. I'm a dog owner who has no problem picking up after my dog. I think Kendal is particularly well served for bins which makes this even easier. Unfortunately, an attitude change is needed or the real risk of being caught and fined (heavily) for many people to change their ignorant behaviour. Thank you for looking at the issue as it is a problem on our streets. It is the fault of the council for closing public toilets-there are people in Ulverston scared to go out now due to the lack of facilities. All these "orders" are a great idea, but i do have concerns about how they will be enforced. ?? Incontinent sufferers? + No public toilets after shops shut. SLDC have added to this problem-few toilets. As a sufferer-I am having to look at moving away from the town. I try to be discreet. This should equally apply to bottles left in parks and promenades and general litter. Some of the urination problems could be solved by re-opening all toilets in Grange. Dog fouling is a problem throughout the Lake District on footpaths, bridleways, etc, and is worse in the visitor seasons. I walk and cycle and have accidently trodden in/biked over faeces on a number if occasions. The atrocious smell hits ones nose immediately. The gooey mess is very difficult to remove and leaves behind a strong odour on shoes, walking sticks, bike tyres, etc. even when apparently clean. Only soaking in strong disinfectant after cleaning removes the smell. If the council continues to close public toilets where are people supposed to go after 5.30pm when shops/cafes are closed where do people go? Toilets would be better kept open and people pay to use them and this would create revenue. Found Promenade very clean at Grange, also town centre rubbish dropped by general public a bigger eye sore. Do like other towns do and build new public toilets.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 171

Urination in is streets - with 20mph areas being introduced I think these areas should be included in the order It is the same people who habitually allow their dogs to foul and similarly not on a lead. Re Urination. Must be available public conveniences in urban areas if there is a byelaw. The local cemetery is constantly used by dog owners to exercise dogs. The dogs are never on leads and poo bags clearly seen at the entries. Its about time people are prosecuted for dog fouling. Dog licences should be reintroduced. What does the council expect when it closes down most of the public conveniences and imposes a charge to use the remainder? Dog licenses should be brought back. Dog fouling for wheelchair users is horrendous. Instead of closing public toilets, upgrade existing and build new ones where required. Make a charge suggest (20p/50p) to pay for upkeep. (Skipton good example of this). How much has this consultation cost? How will the laws if passed, be policed -another cost. How practical? Re. Q13. Toilets should not have been demolished. Could have been improved and 20p charged. Where are the details of the toilets that can be used are and the pays a times-they were on new road toilet block. The recent closure of many public conveniences in South Cumbria might lead to an increase in public urination and defecation. Isn't it possible to keep more public conveniences open? Perhaps this would not happen so much if there were more toilets available for the use of the general public. Perhaps an on the spot fine for owners when walking their dog who are not carrying a plastic bag for cleaning up purposes. Would be less of a problem if you supported public toilets. these should be your priority Proper provision of public toilet facilities is essential re urination /defecation I am assuming that the public urination is by PEOPLE and not by dogs ... it is absolutely right that people should be fined for urinating/defecating in a public place. Re DOGS ... mostly there is not too much of a problem. I support the dog-exclusion from play areas, but it is vital that dogs can have off-lead exercise in parks and open spaces such as Gooseholme, the river walks and Kendal castle. The provision of more bins and maybe bags might help here. Mostly there is only a problem in certain areas of the castle and not always. SLDC's provision of public toilets is poor. What do you expect people to do in an emergency? Make criminals out of them! More public toilets would probably reduce public urination. I do not approve in urination in public places but we are shooting ourselves in the foot by closing public toilets. We need more, better maintained public facilities Don't bring in a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have never seen anyone defecting in the street. Occasionally I have seen people urinating, however this is rare and usually at the side of a dual carriageway by a child with a parent holding them. As south Lakeland district council has closed most of the toilets in the Grange Area, if urination and defecation has increased then it is hardly surprising as there are very few public conveniences. When you have to go you have to go. One major problem is dogs being allowed to run free on Grange promenade. The dogs are allowed to defecate among the flower beds which make it most unpleasant for the volunteer workers who maintain these gardens. I have known people who have ceased to be volunteers because of this problem. We do not pay council tax for the upkeep of playing fields so people can exercise their dogs. These are playing fields for sporting and other human activities. If people wish to exercise their dogs they should have their own designated areas paid for at their expense. I strongly object to people hanging plastic bags of defecation in trees. Public urination in Ulverston central side streets, alleys and shop door is common during weekend evenings. 275 reported incidents across South Lakeland over 4 years hugely underestimates the

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 172 problem. Would exempt small children under 5 from this I have little confidence in any new laws regarding dogs, not until someone starts enforcing the existing ones we have. We have no toilets or urinals in Kendal. Previously 2 urinals and at least 6 toilets last straw New Road going, you have to go somewhere!!! There is also the problem of used poop-bags being thrown into hedgerows and private gardens. More litter bins are needed. If SLDC is going to take vigorous measures against dog owners, then take similar measures against cat owners and litter bugs. Cats should not be allowed to roam. Don’t issue blanket SLDC wide dog orders - think of the local community and those living in the area. Use the powers where there is actually a problem.... SLDC can't currently enforce the current bylaws or legislation on clearing up after dogs, what hope does SLDC think they will have with this lot of legislation. Who's going to be patrolling Grange Prom or the playing fields 18 hours a day - get real guys and dolls? Most dog owners where I live are responsible people but this sort of anti-dog legislation is a sort of official constraint upon basic human freedoms. We do not need it. I would say, that in relation to public urination, as a year old male, I sometimes find, particularly in view of the widespread closure of public toilets, the need to relieve myself in what may be termed a public place. I would never do this on full view of anyone else, but have been left with little choice, other than despoiling my clothing, but to find a private place to urinate. I would hope that my doing so would not mean that I stood in danger of having a criminal record Q13. If you IDIOTS on the COUNCIL had not closed public toilets perhaps this would not be an issue. CATS foul public places what are going to do about this problem. On Heron Hill estate cars park so far on the pavement people have to walk in the road this is a much greater danger to the public particularly mothers with prams and old people. I feel very strongly about keeping dogs on leads in public areas. It is very intimidating when big dogs run up at you when you are out for a walk and I have even been attacked in the past and know of others who have also been too. Quite often people have several loose dogs running everywhere. There are too many people who do not attempt to control their dog (often their dog is out of their view), even when there are signs and there is livestock in fields - is an attitude problem with them. Owners need to take responsibility for their dogs, and I feel I have a right to walk along a footpath without feeling threatened by out of control dogs. Generally owners are better than they were at picking up mess as it has become socially unacceptable (except for some who leave bags of mess in hedges, fences etc) - why can't this be the case for keeping them on leads and under control. I am not very frightened when I see a dog not on a lead when I am out and feel that the owners are ruling the countryside - they can go where they want to, but I'm now too afraid to go to many places because there are so many out of control dogs. I fully support the law that pooh should be picked up by the owner; it is disgusting if they don’t. But how are they supposed to clean up after urination, especially in dogs that mark their territory on every other lamppost. Only to say that I feel a lot of what you propose will have little impact on irresponsible owners but will be detrimental to those who are responsible. I would rather see the council invest in a few individuals to monitor the areas that have the most complaints and get some successful prosecutions. I think a few high profile cases will do a lot to deter others. You only need to spend a weekend in one location to catch someone leaving their dog mess. It would not be time well spent to go every day to the same spot. Ps. I actually do not think Cumbria is too bad for dog poo compared to other places I have lived or visited. The fact that dog fouling is high on peoples list of things to complain about, and then we must be doing a lot of other things right! It is just a shame we have to spend thousands on these consultations (including you reading this reply) when it would be much better if you just put your jacket on, walk out the door and catch folk for breaking the dog fowling laws that already exist. The closure of many public conveniences cannot surely help the situation. It is no good saying that various establishments allow the public to use their toilets. I am a local and cannot remember which

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 173 businesses signed up to the agreement. How are others supposed to know, especially visitors? Public Urination Order It can be no surprise that since funding was cut for public toilets that the number of instances of public urination has increased. Equally the instances of alcohol related offences must form a significant part of this problem. Can we expect enforcement officers to use their judgement with such orders? Will you be prosecuting a mother whose small child needs to go to the toilet? This bye-law is all well and good in theory but in practice completely over-the-top and exacerbated by cuts in public funding of toilets. I cannot support the introduction of additional dog control orders that in nearly all cases fail to tackle the root causes of the problems. Too many dogs owned by irresponsible owners, too little enforcement of current laws and too little responsibility placed on owners. Most of these ideas will do nothing other than to impede the responsible dog owner. "Dog Control Orders" DEFRA 2006 Para 29 States: "It is important for any authority considering a Dog Control Order to be able to show that this is a necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them." The Council has not shown this, nor has it shown the balance between interests of those in charge of dogs and the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs (Para 30). Therefore the proposed orders have not been properly justified and are vulnerable to challenge in the Courts. More ways of reporting, all dogs to be chipped including dangerous dogs. Regular patrols. I don't think this byelaw can be implemented when most of the public toilets have recently been closed. People get desperate, and it isn't always the case that a suitable alternative toilet is nearby. Elderly people, disabled people, pregnant women, and children can get 'caught short' and can't wait or make a bladder-jogging walk to the nearest toilet, which may be up to 1/2 mile away. Likewise, there are no public toilets at all in many of the outdoors walking areas or their car parks. If the concern is about drunken people urinating in public there are already public decency orders in place for that which the police can enforce. While out walking with my four year old grandson at Rope Walk in Ulverston, he spotted a pine cone in the grass verge. Before i could get to him, he had sat down in two lots of dog mess. One covered his jeans but the other was on his hand. He started crying and came very close to wiping his eyes with the disgusting mess on his hand. There are too many dangerous dogs let off their leads in public places. Priority must be given to the health and safety of the public. There are a lot of people who pick up the dog mess and place them in bags only to throw these bags away as soon as no one is looking, most don't bother to pick it up at all. You only need to walk the footpaths and streets in and around the towns to see evidence of this. To counter this, dog wardens should be introduced, funded by a dog licencing system and dog walking should be restricted to a few designated footpaths where it would be easier to police As responsible dog owners who live in Ulverston we are finding it increasingly difficult to walk our dog locally. Granted there is The Hoad still (at the moment) where we can let the dog off, this currently is in bad need of a dog bin at the bottom nr Ford Park as even I've noticed an increase of dog poo bags being left lying around. We are careful to keep our dog in control and away from any livestock grazing. Ford Park has recently cut off a large section of park not just by the play area, yes we still have a section on the other side but it's a little unfair to cut off the bottom section. I'd like to be able to take our toddler to the play area and tie the dog up on that side but restricted, hardly fair! The only place is in the local church yard but the dog bin was removed a while back which wasn't very helpful. Owners are being increasingly restricted as to where they can walk dogs which in turn means dogs don't get enough exercise which is a danger to their health, people need to walk their dogs! We feel that in future we won't want to have a dog again in Ulverston as it wouldn't be fair to the animal if we have nowhere (eventually) to walk it. Plus we even clean up after other dogs mess (not our own) if we see it! May I point you to a company website who I believe are brilliant and would be extremely beneficial to the 'Clean Streets' campaign? Perhaps a deal could be struck for them to do a demo at one of the meetings or even a money off scheme to encourage dog owners to clean up! I think these pooper scoopers are ideal for owners who continually avoid cleaning their dog's mess up because they don't

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 174 like carrying the bags around and looking for bins! http://www.dickybag.com/ More dog bins are needed, and a sensible approach to orders would be acceptable. Forcing dogs to be kept on leads in more and more places is making it difficult to exercise a dog adequately. It is already at a point that I will not have another dog after this one, which would be a shame for my young family. You need to provide sufficient public toilets for the public to use. It is an irony that SLDC is trying to introduce these measures when at the same time it is closing or introducing charges for public conveniences. Can someone who urinates or defecates in the street be prosecuted if they are spotted in the act by a member of the public and reported to the police? If public toilets were statutory provision maybe less human urination and defecation. What about litter which is far more prevalent than either of these and is not enforced. How much money will have to be budgeted to implement 'new' dog orders-SLDC can't provide enough dog monitors currently. Nor afford to maintain public toilets. Again minority ruling over majority. Is not litter dropping part of clean streets and again rarely currently enforced. Also charges for non-regular household waste leading to more fly tipping. Dog orders could be prevention to infirm or elderly from keeping dogs for company in future. make sure there are available lavatories in all areas In my local area the problem of fouling pavements and footpaths is MOST DEFINATELY worse at times of high visitor numbers. Properties let to dog owners need specific reminders for guests. I have noticed that this has become more of a problem in stairwells and car parks since the public toilets were closed. There needs to be clearer signage as to where public toilets can be found. Otherwise desperate people will urinate and defecate in the streets. REOPEN public toilets! Why are we taking so long to reinforce those laws?! I am tired of side stepping dog faeces in beautiful public footpaths. I have lost count how many male/females use the car park (my house situated next to it) in the evenings to urinate. I don't think this would be a problem if there were public toilets in the area. Councils are responsible for providing services to the public as well. Toilets are necessary to everyone and should be available. The most obvious comment on this issue is the closing of public toilets, and restricting the hours of opening on the ones left serviceable. Where does the person go, when they have had a nights drinking and a long walk home? People have different bladder capacities. Don’t agree with using the public area ,but SLDC in a way must take some responsibility for the people who do it The questions seem to just ask whether there is support for the principles but don't seem to suggest anything will actually be done, or make reference to banning dogs in certain areas, as mentioned earlier the Rec in Windermere where dog fouling is a real problem. Are Abbott Hall and The Castle included (both Kendal) in some or all of the area for dog exclusion. Urination in the street has become more of a problem since public toilets were closed. Provisions of public toilets were a far-sighted idea by our forebears. Closing them is definitely ...... 21st century?? With sldc closing public toilets where do people go to urinate, especially children? No thought given to either visitors or locals as regards urination close the toilets and be damned. We can’t even use the toilets in Grange station. Why? I have noticed a big problem of faeces being put in bags and the bags being left on the ground-very unsightly and pointless. This seems to be a particular problem in rural areas where there are no bins. I recently noticed a huge build-up of bags at 'White Moss', Rydal, Grasmere. I do support the public urination law but have one concern. The lack of public toilets in this area can be such that one is simply 'caught short'. I suggest the monies acquired from this law be spent on the provision of basic toilet facilities around the borough. This is very important and I fully support your actions. IN order to pay for more officers to deal with this bring back dog licences for dog owners to keep dogs (it used to work). To avoid it you should reopen some of the public toilets that have been closed recently or people will continue to be caught short. However, I suspect the main problem is the late night drinking culture that now exists and is getting out of control. When people are drunk they do stupid things, not only defecating and urinating in the streets but also fighting, shouting, vandalising etc. As an aside have

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 175 you noticed how many cars are reported in the Westmorland Gazette as being vandalised late at night in the past few years? Alcohol and drugs are now rife amongst many of the young people and the police can only scratch the surface of the problem. Put some boundaries in place. I would favour re-introduction of dog licensing, with appropriate concessions and exemptions-not a council matter of course. I think that dogs being walked on Braithwaite Fold Fields should have to keep their dogs on leads, after a dog behaved very aggressively to me whilst being walked by its local owner (The owner was very far behind the dog, and then blamed me for the dog’s behaviour). As a mum of an adventurous two year old it is heart-breaking to restrain him from experiencing his environment due to my fear as to what he may stand/fall in. We would appreciate any improvement to the state of our walkways through promoting responsible dog ownership. There must be provision for public conveniences or else where do you go if caught short. Consider reduction in council tax for businesses which provide facilities or consider Spanish protocol where you we welcome in any business premises. You should ask whether the respondent to this survey is a dog owner as it should help you gauge whether you are getting support from that community. Ok....it's on the next page!! More bins to put dog faeces! Where are you supposed to urinate if the few designated shops etc are closed? Lack of public toilets in SLDC is an absolute disgrace! The increase in persons urinating in public places is probably due to closure of certain toilets and lack of education of the subject. Since Peppercorn Toilets have closed I have seen at least a dozen or more urinating in public!! (& Abbott Hall Gallery Toilets closed at 4/5pm) SLDC has closed so many of the public toilets; it was bound to result in people having to 'go' in the street. Visitors to South Lakeland must be appalled at such disgraceful lack of facilities. The question of public toilets must be addressed before any by law is passed Give us back our toilets...... I think that if you concentrate on making sure that people pick up dog poo, and that their dogs are not causing a nuisance, than you don't need to ban dogs from pitches that are only used for part of the year. Policing the whole lot would be far too big a job, and I am certainly reluctant to pay for this considering I feel responsible dog owners are being shunned because of the few that are not responsible. l seriously worry that we are becoming an increasingly intolerant nation. Dogs are not our enemies; they perform a very valuable role in society. By demonising them we are creating a division between dog lovers and dog haters. For instance l was recently forced off a footpath by two male cyclists, (the footpath clearly displays a No Cycling sign), my dog was on a lead at the time, but when l cursed them, their retort was l shouldn't walk my dog in a public place! It is obvious that dog faeces is a real problem in our streets, and this should be dealt with. Beyond that l think we should all calm down and remember how life used to be before this barrage of rules regulations and punishments changes the way we respect each other forever. I see one question about public urination (which I must say I've not witnessed) but many more about dog fouling. If a dog fouls even when on a lead and the owner chooses not to clear it up there's not much progress made. No-one seems to do anything about young people who roar up and down car parks - in particular Hampsfell car park in Grange which is right next to sheltered accommodation - when they clearly are a nuisance to the older people. It's becoming all too heavy handed for minor worries. No-one WANTS to tread in dog muck but there are worse things in life to worry about. If SLDC closes toilets what should desperate people do!? With recent closures of public toilets, SLDC have helped cause this problem! Other towns see public toilets as a basic service. Also, where can one take young children who need to use a toilet? Not even Kendal Town Hall! If the Council had not closed so many public toilets, perhaps there would be less of a problem with Public urination etc. in the streets. Obviously people are urinating in the street more nowadays due to the closure of public toilets.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 176 open all toilets 24 hours Kendal needs some public toilets. Maybe ones which are unisex. Shops are not open after 5.00 p.m. so Kendal has been left lacking in this provision. Comments submitted on behalf of Burton-in-Kendal Parish Council If 90% or more of dog owners are caring, responsible citizens why introduce orders that will affect only them. Focus on the irresponsible owners and prosecute them/remove their dogs. Yes-keep more public toilets open and free and there might not be such a problem/need for the law. I rent off a Housing Association and have complained to them about the dog fouling round by us. Someone from the office phoned me last week and said there have been many complaints about it. What they would like is someone to be fined over this and it might deter others from letting their dogs out to foul where they please. She said they had to catch them first though. The only way to do this is for a Dog Warden to patrol the area at 6.00am - follow the dog home (which would only be in the next street) - then they'll have the culprit. For urination in street order circumstances to be taken into account Council closed public loos .What happens after the pubs etc shut...... there are no pubs, shops or town halls open with facilities!!!!!!! in the town centre area open your toilets Training and common sense, suitable facilities and people taking responsibility can be reduced if replaced by laws and orders. Would not like this to become the 'thin end of the wedge' and dogs be banned from everywhere. There are lots of responsible dog owners who get great pleasure from walks with their pets. With the closing of public toilets the council should take a portion of the blame for this problem. Our office adjoins the entrance to yard 17 and the walls are stained where they have been used as a toilet. I believe it is a problem associated with drinkers leaving pubs and rules alone will achieve very little, unless enforced. This is a problem at least in part created by SLDC and the closure of public toilets. The council failed to listen to public opinion on the subject of toilets. Maybe they should learn from that. Ability and desire of the police to enforce this order equitably and consistently at all hours and across all classes of society. I have spoken to a number of people who do not know there is a toilet for public use in the Town Hall. Perhaps it could be publicised more widely? However with the Urination section, the fact that you keep closing public toilets is a problem. Also you close them and then don't label they are closed, or have a sign you can only read once you are up close to them. Re the public urination etc order-it is obvious this problem has escalated due to closure of public toilets which is always going to result in a public nuisance and a health hazard especially to children who may not always be aware of mess. Time now for new toilets. Lack of public toilets does not help this problem - reverse closures. I believe Harmony Green belongs to the local Parish Council so would SLDCs "fouling of land by dogs order" apply here? More free toilets in area, more signs of those toilets we already have. Make signs clear and if they are found to urinate in public come down on them like a tonne of bricks. Sorry but it is disgusting. I do consider that urination in the street-has probably been exacerbated by the closure/removal of public toilets. Bring back some form of licensing. Limit number of dogs kept by any one person. What about dogs on leads held by cyclists? Don’t support at Q13. If you close the public toilets (esp. in an area of old folk) you can expect people to be 'cut short' The police can already deal with this no need for more laws. How can public urination/defecation be avoided if we have no public toilets? I believe some shops & pubs will allow use of their toilets without buying anything, but how do visitors know which they are? Sometimes you can go too far in action against dog owners. Often they are part of the family just like children and in some cases replacement for children. I quite often see young children running or

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 177 cycling out of control in public places. Although I support this Byelaw in principle, I think it must be enforced with common sense and discretion. Obviously it would be useful in taking action against the results of binge drinking and in conjunction with disorderly behaviour. However, I feel that it has been a mistake and a retrograde step for a "civilised society" to close most of the public toilets, and to make a charge for the remainder. Inevitably there will be occasions when a person is "taken short" and will have to deal with the problem in as discreet a way as circumstances allow. The authorities must be sympathetic towards this. It is especially important that such a by-law be implemented as pubs and clubs close and particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. What about people who just let their dog out to roam unaccompanied to foul our garden?-and they say 'he’s just a dog' when i complain. At a time when SLDC is closing and demolishing public toilets and those that remain are closed in the evenings you are fighting against the tide. The closure of public toilets is a worrying aspect of this subject, particularly for elderly people who need to use a toilet because of a urinary problem. Of course this is unacceptable and again the minority are causing problems. Yes, this is disgusting as humans have toilets dedicated. Decent public toilets need to be available at all times for the order to be effective Yes, whilst in principle I support the urination and defecation in public byelaw I do not think it very fair to bring it in when there are no official public conveniences in Kendal. Sure some businesses offer their toilet facilities to the public BUT these are not open 24 or even 12 hours a day, and often on Sundays or Bank Holidays simply not available. I live close to the centre and even I have struggled to get home to use the loo on occasion. SLDC has been foolish to close or demolish public toilets. In other areas of the country, pay-to-enter toilets are regularly found. Introducing a byelaw is only appropriate if suitable arrangements are made for public toilets that can be paid for by entry fees. There also should be clear notices about where public toilets can be found - e.g. in shopping centres (not much use if closed); in pubs and restaurants that support a common entry policy; and on streets/locations What are you going to do about all of the litter on the sides of the roads and in the hedges? It is appalling! Defecation is much more serious than urination, but would obviously prefer neither! Fining people for public urination sounds is unworkable. What if a person has a medical problem and no public toilets are available? Because of SLDC's policy of closing public toilets urination in the street is more likely to happen. Or is this a deliberate policy - close all the toilets and then fine people who can't find a toilet to use? Most of the dog fouling seems to occur near schools. Is it the parents? As a dog owner and father to young family I am very conscious of where I have my dog on and off the lead, and always clean up after him. Please do not tar all dog owners with the same brush Don’t close public toilets down and then complain if they do it in public areas. Bring our toilets back, then fine people if they don’t use them. Q13-the limit should be 40 mph Re defecation in public areas: a £500 fine is nothing like sufficient. The culprits should be jailed. Any legislation to be VERY carefully and CLEARLY worded. If there were more public toilets then maybe people wouldn’t be 'caught short'! I own two dogs and get very cross at irresponsible owners who do not tidy up after their dogs. There is no exercise for humans who behave like poorly trained dogs!! a). Closure of public toilets leads to the above problem. b). Concerning clean streets- the cleaner vehicle regularly cleans roads but it is the pavements that need attention. Litter of all kinds is left there. Publicity to ensure-"go before you leave pub/restaurant" I think it will put people off having dogs which is a shame as dogs bring a lot of joy to people-also there may be a risk of stray dogs in the area as people may get rid of their dogs rather than risk a fine. It will also take the enjoyment out of walking dogs for owners if they know their dog could be liable to cause a fine. Also I don't hold with dogs always on leads.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 178

Until better provisions are made for members of the public-i.e. cafes/pubs etc MUST allow anyone to use their toilets-then public urination is going to happen. It's inevitable! I believe dogs should be under control and safe for other dogs and people whilst still giving them the freedom to be dogs. I am appalled. Public identification of culprits in the newspaper might be a deterrent. Public toilets-not pleasant but seemingly necessary. Essential that these are publicised cases of fines imposed-otherwise dog owners will think the regulations ineffective. As a responsible dog owner I am disgusted and disappointed by the behaviour of some dog owners with regard to fouling. But there need to be some people charged and fined and for it to be made public as an example to others. At the moment people feel they can just get away with it. But we must be wary of being so controlling that we remove people's opportunities to enjoy owning a pet dog. It should be more than £500 if someone is caught. It should be a criminal offence. They are disgusting people. Regarding Q13 what about 20mph speed limit areas? Does it apply to children/toddlers? Q 11. Should include church graveyards too. THIS IS A PARTICULAR PROBLEM ON CYCLE ROUTES THROUGH THE COUNTRYSIDE ON ROADS AS WELL AS STREETS. Many local residents clear up after tourists, both dog mess and litter. Strengthen local law while allowing local dog owners to walk dogs off leads on Grange-O-Sands promenade. Irresponsible behaviour of a few should be dealt with by the "correct" personas/when it happens. The majority of people do not behave in an anti-social manner and therefore should NOT be alienated by a heavy handed approach. Disabled car park off B5282 between Storth and Arnside. Every day there is a succession of cars parking there to walk their dogs along the embankment. This is intended as an ideal walk for disabled people- for wheelchairs, mobility scooters, and people with walking difficulties-just the worst situations to encounter dog faeces on the path. (I have complained about this to SLDC at least twice in the past). Perhaps, if toilets had not been sold/closed down, it wouldn’t be such a problem now e.g. Gooseholme, Kendal. People have to go to the toilet somewhere. We have touring caravans parked upon Natland road so the bush areas can he used for toilet purposes. People draw up in cars their dogs wander around the park and then loom off. Also I walk my dog along the canal where the nettles are shoulder high therefore picking up after my dog presents a problem. Dog Control Orders will, unfortunately, affect the responsible owners who abide by the proposals anyway. I own six dogs and all my walking jackets are full of "poo bags". Those who are guilty of leaving a mess will continue to do so and thus the responsible ones will be penalised but the situation will not improve. How is it proposed to police the problem? I support the idea of Dog Orders generally but am concerned about whether or not they will be enforceable. My own dogs are never off the lead outside, they are hounds and would run if they caught a scent and nothing would stop them. With regard to question 14 I thought we were talking about dogs. Again, this is best achieved by the public talking to 'offenders' - there can often be mitigating circumstances not taken into account by officials. Local knowledge is so important. What is needed is the support of officers when action by the public fails but it is this that should be encouraged far before anything else Unfortunately, the closure of public conveniences around the area has increased this problem. It would be nice if you could build a dog park, walkway just for dogs in the country. Given the fact that Kendal is the only town in northern not to have ANY public conveniences open in an evening they are mainly responsible for the increase in this problem, older people particularly men need to frequently use a toilet, what can they do if none are provided? I am concerned at the closure of public loos; the order on urination etc can only be enforced if adequate provision is made of public facilities. I do not agree with the present call on shop keepers to permit non shoppers access to their toilets. PROMOTE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE HEALTH SAFETY HAZARDS PARTICULARLY FOR

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 179

CHILDREN Please let us enjoy our pets - just because you don't own a dog doesn't mean you are more conscientious about a clean environment than owners are What is worse than dog faeces is the fact that owners use plastic bags to pick faeces up then just throw them in the hedge. These owners should have a hefty fine if caught. More toilets as they keep shutting them and if you don't live in the areas and get took short what do you do? Why are you surprised that there is an increase in these types of offence when you have closed most of the public lavatories? What on earth are people meant to do? If the Council continue closing public toilets then public urination can only increase! Clear information needs to be provided so dog owners know when and where their dogs need to be on leads. The majority of dog owners are responsible-this order is for the minority who won't care either way and will take no notice of the order whether fined or not. There must be adequate access to public toilets otherwise in emergency the streets may be used. I think it is possible that these problems have been made worse by the closure of public toilets. 1. The lack of public toilets is a contributory factor. 2. This is not just a town centre problem. Problem needs largely to anti-social behaviour relaxed so excess drinking (alcohol). This regulation is dealing with the effect rather than the cause of the problem. Yes random offences should be dealt with but with an ageing population and reduction in open public toilets numbers the pressure on elderly male bladders and prostate problems must be considered. Increase in public urination and defecation in the street. Due to lack of 23 hr. public toilets. Dog walkers use the path alongside of the children’s play area. Mill rise, Mill brow hardly gets cleaned. My only concern would be when "small" children are desperate-would that be an offence? Before SLDC create the Public Urination and Defecation Order, may I suggest they re-open all the public toilets they have closed over the past few years and stop wasting tax payers’ money on consultants, and other half-baked ideas like the Olympics celebrations! Why is Public defecation/urination included in a survey on dogs? Also, why is the penalty up to £500, when the penalty for dog defecation is up to £1000? Public defecation should attract the penalty wherever it takes place in open spaces. If you really mean dog urination, then it would be ridiculous to try to control this, Tighten up on irresponsible owners not good owners fine those who don’t pick up and those with nasty dogs. we should not be punished for owning a dog. Kids cause more mess than dogs. Re q.13. If you close all the public toilets i don’t see how you can fine desperate offenders. it is common place throughout Europe! 30mph zones? See above. If more "public" conveniences were available this could help solve some of these problems. Why are responsible dog owners being penalised for the irresponsible few? A higher presence of enforcers would stop fouling; can PCSO's give on the spot fines for dog fouling? Why should we stop at dogs? There is as much of an issue with cats fouling on open spaces and other peoples gardens, and there is no potential for them being fined, why not? It's just as dangerous as dog fouling. Re Q13 every effort must be made to keep public WCs open Birkrigg Common bye law regarding dogs is too vague. A bye law requiring dogs to be on a lead at all times should be introduced for Birkrigg Common. Why not start a campaign to stop cow muck, sheep muck, horse muck, and any other type of animal excrement? No one ever complains of this type of problem. Obviously I live in a rural area which is NOT being taken in to consideration. Everyone is jumping on the vehicle to protest when they really don't think about the area we live in. i.e. working dogs and farm dogs Public toilets are a necessary facility to maintain. The main issue is irresponsible owners (as usual) and, although I applaud and support this initiative; the obvious main reason it may be less effective than hoped is actually catching people in the act of 1. Allowing nuisance/dangerous behaviour. More access to public toilets, especially in evenings, may help to reduce urination/defecation in public

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 180 areas. How will public urination bylaw apply to parents who allow/help their child/children to defecate in the street e.g. holding child over a gutter in full view of passer-by, as I have often seen? I totally support Q13 and agree folk who use the streets as a loo are possibly drunk and would not look for public toilet BUT without the opportunity to use a public toilet, especially at night, what is the choice? The closure of public toilets in South Lakeland is responsible for the greater problem of Public Urination. It is vital for residents and tourists alike that facilities are kept open and in a clean condition. Allowance should be made where SLDC has closed public toilets and person’s options therefore are compromised. One cannot ignore the fact that to close public toilets has certain impact in certain areas. Yes-public facilities need to be made available so that people don’t have to urinate or defecate in the street. Open up public lavatories. I have walked my two dogs for the last 12 years on Grange Promenade off the lead except where the presence of other dogs is a problem. Closure of public lavatories makes for a problem. The dogs on leads order is another example of an obstruction of personal library! Info in the press has suggested the new order relates to urination by dogs, whereas I am not sure this is the case having read the questionnaire so far. I think the confusion needs to be resolved. The Council should, through the various local authority associations, bring pressure to bear on government to address the problem of irresponsible dog ownership by the re-introduction of dog licencing. Dog licence fees should be retained by local councils to fund an effective dog warden service that extends beyond the main urban centres. There are many AREAS need cleaning of rubbish especially along the rivers and outside the bus stop at Morrisons Kendal. Please try and see the bigger picture. You do not make someone a responsible dog owner by introducing a law. They need education and if that fails prosecution. The law already exists but you don't police it and neither will you police the 'new' law. The dog will foul whether it's on a lead or not and the same people will pick it up and the same ones won't. Drinking alcohol on the canal path is a problem. This can make the environment feel unsafe and intimidating after dark. Very often when we take the dog for a walk there are smashed bottles on the paths which are a hazard to dogs, children and bikes! Our dog cut her paw on some of this glass some time ago and we had to pay a £196 vets bill on top of the stress and worry. Why is this allowed to continue despite signs saying the area is an alcohol free zone?! Due to the closure of many of our public conveniences being closed in South Lakeland I am not at all surprised at the increase of offences. I cannot state how strongly I feel about this-a classic example in Grange Promenade where the lack of facilities is abysmal and the situation is appalling for residents and tourists. Getting people to bag poo then they have nowhere to put it is a problem. Better to use bag to put it somewhere safe and take bag home/bin later, when in country area. Whilst I agree with the fines being handed out, why is there a fine of £1000 for a four legged dog and only a £500 fine for a two legged dirty gog who should know better? Give the two legged one community service to pick up after the four legged one!! There is the usual smell of urine in multi-storey car parks-e.g. M&S, Westmorland, Chapel Lane, cut through to Kirkbarrow. 1) All animals should be micro chipped by law 2) Dog owners should take classes with their dogs to control behaviour problems. 3) See 3-dog poo fairy campaign info Keep Britain tidy site-many councils use this! Although I do support the "Public Urination" byelaw, I do feel that the closure of all public toilets in Kendal will only make matters worse, especially at night when shops and cafes, whose toilets are available to the public, are closed. It is difficult to stop a dog from urinating in a street but defecation can be cleaned up, but bins need to be provided as they do in Pendle Area where we live. We visit South Lakeland every weekend and have noticed NO dog bins anywhere.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 181

Re q13. Closure of public lavatories in the SLDC area must have influenced this problem. Can the consultation look at this cause and effect and come up with some answers. The council also need to look at the number of public loos available. No one should be made to feel that desperate that they are forced to public urination (drunks apart). How many loos have you closed?? BUT with public toilets closed/destroyed, what are people to do at night and when too far from the service private ones? More toilets are needed and to be marked. It’s a difficult situation now in Kendal during the day especially for visitors, it must be much worse at night. The police should have authority but with understanding. Where do rough ...... and late night urination go to use the toilet? Should be extended to include spitting in the street Dogs not on leads or on extendable leads are a significant hazard to cyclists on public roads; particularly as some dogs are actively antagonistic-not been trained to accept a bicycle as a non- threat. It’s very difficult to stop dogs urinating (especially male dogs) and, whilst it should be discouraged, i think a fine in this instance would be harsh. I am extremely worried (as a very responsible dog owner) about the proposals but I’m strongly in favour regarding children’s play areas, pavements and promenades. I am as frustrated as any person without a dog when i see dog mess - probably more so as it affects me directly and causes this kind of situation. To be very clear, it would be nothing short of animal cruelty to not allow extensive areas where dogs can be let off the lead. Should not apply the children under 10. First you take away the public toilets, now you charge the desperate £500??!! With regard to Q13. We need to have more public toilets-even if it means we have to pay to use them. We live in Hawkshead the amount of dog dirt in our area is disgusting especially in summer; visitors seem to think that it’s ok for their dogs to foul everywhere because they are in the country side. They are not the only ones some locals don’t respect our pavements. In general terms i would support increased powers to support the dog fouling issue, however, this should always be tempered with the fact that many people own dogs in order to gain exercise and enjoy the countryside, therefore restricting dog owners/walkers could result in fewer people visiting certain areas. public defecation and urination - take their photos and give us all a laugh There should be more public toilets. I think the issue is dog fouling in urban areas. Why do some people 'pick up' after their dog’s then throw the full bag in a hedge/field? Is this because the signs only say clean up after your dog and not give full instructions on disposal. Plastic bags full of dog faeces hanging in trees will degrade slower than just leaving it!! The council has systematically closed public toilets, yes you have the community scheme but this does not apply in the evening so the public despoil the area. Reopen strategic toilets! In addition to dog fouling in streets, open spaces, etc. holiday makes who rent properties on the private estate where we live, seem to think it is ok for their dogs to run free and foul on the grass and public areas. It is supposed to be prohibited! We have spoken to the management company about it. Most annoying-People who pick up the pooh and then throw the bag into the bushes when no one is looking. My four year old son is often caught short and has a wee in a bush or a drain, after having children, I also sometimes suffer from a weak bladder, it can be a disability for a lot of people and to fine it is wrong. Dog license would help to improve the problem. Why do some people need 3 and 4 dogs? Public urination has increased since the closure of many toilets, Kendal being very bad. What are folk to do? I find harassment and threatened by dogs on Sheriffs walk and adjacent small road particularly bad. We live on an estate of privately owned many holiday flats where dogs are supposed to be kept on leads and controlled at all times but often let them run free and foul anywhere! The holiday letting agents never seem to give full instructions to their tenants, although the managing agents have told them. Allowances might need to be made for someone with a medical condition who gets desperate and

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 182 urinates off road. Will public toilets be kept open? Public urination and defection in the street-it must be taken into consideration if the offender has a medical condition that may cause them to offend-especially if public conveniences are not available in the immediate area. Q.13 Is a natural consequence of closing public conveniences, should re-open extra facilities, if it is a big problem for the elderly when shopping in towns like Kendal. I USED TO WORK WITHIN GROUNDS MAINTENANCE PROFESSION (BOLTON MBC) ALSO COVERING LITTER-DOG FOULING WHICH WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM. DOG BINS WOULD BE SITED IN STRATEGIC AREAS-I.E. PARKS SPORTS FIELDS-COSTING SEVERAL THOUSANDS OF POUNDS TO INITIATE AND EMPTYING-BUT DOG OWNERS WERE VERY NEGLIGENT- WASTING TAX PAYERS MONEY. I.E. NO SUCH THING AS A BAD DOG-IT'S THE OWNERS!!! YES-OPEN UP THE PUBLIC TOILETS AND DO NOT INTRODUCE A CHARGE TO THE RENOVATED TOILETS IN THE GHYLL ULVERSTON. 1. WILL YOU HAVE THE MANPOWER TO DO THE JOB? 2. SIMILAR ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN RE LITTER AND GRAFFITI. Urination & littering by members of the public should be stamped down on as hard as dog fouling. It's disgusting and could be a danger to people's health. There's no excuse for this behaviour at all. Ensure control orders fully implemented with publicity given to successful prosecutions. I spoke to gentlemen on Friday 13th July after my daughter (age 10) witnessed him urinating in Angel Yard just up from the council offices - I was given lots of abuse and told that he could urinate there because it wasn't a public area. Then I was told to walk on the main street and not use alleyways! He was VERY drunk!! Even though it's not nice, I don't support the urination in street order due to the lack of open public toilets. And the police don't seem to have had any problem in bringing prosecutions in this regard in the past. If urination is banned, there must be toilet facilities available (Canal Foot toilets closed?) DO NOT ALLOW DOG URINATION IN THE STREET. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM. (Ban humans, but allow dogs?-NO!) I feel very strongly about this and I would welcome being contacted about it. The responsible owners comply with these rules sensibly anyway. The already irresponsible ones would continue to be irresponsible! Remove the charges for using public toilets and people may urinate in public less! The toilets that are open to the public are in dire need of upgrading. I am embarrassed by the Bowness toilets they are so poor and not a good advert to the visitors who come to the county and provide revenue to the area. You need to consider small children who cannot control needing to have a pee! Will the parent get fined? the implementation of such a bye law would be effective if the public toilets were reopened - whilst being an offence the closure of toilets will increase the problem Now that so many toilets have closed older people (men) may get "caught short" and discreet relief in a drain should be treated with consideration. I once saw a young man urinating against a car when he had just left the pub which is totally unnecessary and due to excessive drink I would imagine. I did shout at him through my house window. Also used as sexual harassment when some men called out to me, look what we're doing! I think this behaviour is often drink related but unacceptable. dogs need off lead walks and would be detrimental to their welfare if they could not have it i would never visit a town that had that law in place Please do not penalise responsible dog owners and their dogs. Dogs need to be socialised and they need off lead exercise. Thank you for asking for feedback instead of trying to hide this as other councils have done. Yes, I have a major concern regarding the disposal of dog faeces. The number of dogs, over 10 million in the UK in 2006 must represent a significant percentage of the number of human population. Human waste is required to be processed to certain standards through appropriate facilities. I assume dog waste just goes into landfills. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, much more so than carbon dioxide, and fermentation of

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 183 these faeces in a landfill on the scale associated with the number of dogs is a serious concern that seems to be passing under the radar. Easily fermentable organic waste should not be going into landfills unless the resultant methane is being captured. I do not know the rational for allowing dog but not human waste disposal in landfills, and I don't know for certain the particular situation in SLDC, but I would like to be certain that this apparent contradiction is given the attention it might on the face of it require. Look forwards to firm enforcement of orders. I feel there is insufficient provision of public toilets to support this bylaw but would still support it if it specified defecation only. If one is caught short, since the removal of the public toilets what are you expected to do, if one doesn't happen to have a list with you of those premises providing public facilities? To alleviate the problem Public Toilets should be available and not closed. Re Q13 - Public Urination Byelaw - public toilets need to be kept open, maintained and available to the general public. This would help in keeping the streets cleaner I do think that small children may be allowed to be excluded from this if they need a 'wee' and can do it in a secluded grassed area/ away from public sight if there are no facilities available. The proposals for dogs are far too draconian and take away the pleasure of owning a dog. Little thought has been given to farm dogs hunting packs and working dogs SLDC should confine its law making to land..... Control. I assume Q13 refers to human defecation and urinating in public how about making more bins available and emptying them more frequently? Think the bylaw should be made a criminal law re Q13. The person/s found to be doing that should also be made to personally clean up mess etc. More public toilets. There are a lot of people with medical problems and young children who cannot 'hold' it. The closure of the public toilets in S.Lakeland are disgraceful. I suspect these are people who desperately need 'to go' or people who are mentally I'll. A bye law would not be useful in these cases. I would feel differently if there where public toilets available Why not fine those who urinate in the street £1,000, It is essential to provide public toilets. You rarely see a policeman on patrol at Grange so how can it be prevented? Recently at Oxenholme Station, when a train pulled in on which the toilets were not working, a long queue formed for the toilet on the platform. Most could not wait and at least 20 men went to the grass area beyond the toilets to urinate there. The station officials did nothing to stop this. Although we do not own a dog we have visitors who bring dogs with them and we dog sit for family members. There is no point is making orders if the resources to monitor compliance and take enforcement action are not made available. Failure to make adequate resources available will make the SLDC and other bodies a laughing stock as well as reinforcing the view that the "councils are a waste of space". I applaud SLDC in tackling the issue but would like to find a way to accommodate all without making resident dog owners into the baddies. Q13 Cannot support this until the council provides sufficient toilet facilities. This is particularly important to people taking diuretic drugs for medical reasons. I am not against the council charging for toilets on a per use basis. The problem is the result of the closure of the many public toilets. SLDC should fund dog classes to ensure people are trained to control dogs properly like cycling proficiency. There are an increasing number of people who will NOT behave with responsibility to their animals. It must be addressed. Please do not take away the dog walking pleasure of a great amount of people to satisfy the demands of a mean minded few. I was born in Grange and have walked and exercised dogs in this area for nearly seventy years. We always pick up dog dirt and other peoples dog dirt if necessary. Be fair or you will do Grange residents a lot of harm. Dog fouling & dogs running loose are a major issue in rural areas & the problem needs to be addressed before somebody gets hurt. The trouble with prescription is that without you mention everything people will get away with what is

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 184 not written and will lose any sense of personal responsibility. Priority for consideration should be areas such as football, cricket pitches where dogs should not be allowed even on a lead. Closing public toilets (being closed sorry) has possibly led to this. This specific law should not be necessary. If done in public view it could be dealt with under other laws. Defecation could probably be dealt with as littering (but clearly it's daft to make it an offence to leave dog faeces but not human faeces). Reduction in public loos mean it's unreasonable to deny people the chance for discreet relief of the bladder. I trust that comments made by the public can be or shown to be put into action for "clean streets" in south Lakeland and not just forgotten about! Ref Q2 & Q3: fouling of area is now occasional. Ref Q13: why only within 30mph limits, beyond which urban areas often extend. why not say within town/village boundaries which are, or could be defined. Also see attached note. Ref Q14: There is also a problem in Ulverston due to assorted litter dropped in the streets and building surrounds (e.g. library) which is often left for months or until it rots away. The street sweeping machine does a very limited clean up, and papers, bottles, cartons, etc are largely missed. The application of existing litter laws, with on the spot fine, may well have some effect, should the council be able to get police cooperation. the same should apply, anywhere in the open as the problem of urination and defecating on the roadside and laybys is rife in south Lakeland The street I live in is frequently used as a toilet by passers-by. Perhaps we should have retained ALL our Public Conveniences? Re-open all the former public toilets which have been closed in recent years. I already see plenty of signs warning dog owners that they can be fined for not picking up faeces but in reality they just ignore them as realistically the chances of being fined are zero! How does SLDC propose to change this situation? Exclusion orders are good but it will focus into the surrounding fringes. What about dog toilet areas at entrances to open spaces like the Kendal Castle Hill to help dog owners and remind them of their responsibilities? I am very concerned after more numbers of cases of sheep worrying. Why is this? This is a farming area-I can’t understand Why suddenly people are being so careless. It should be harder for own a dog. *(don’t know if this makes sense but it was hard to read, sorry).* Please do not shut the public toilets. I do feel that the inadequate toilet facilities do not help prevent this behaviour. Many (usually well behaved) must be caught out by finding facilities previously open, closed. Individuals with health concerns e.g., bladder cancers, often have a degree of urgency so more consideration of good toilet signage. The problem would probably have been lessened if our councillors had not so foolishly have closed public toilets. 1-with the closure of almost all of the publicly manufactured for pre-ordered toilets in South Lakeland, it is inevitable that there will be some public urination that might not otherwise occur. 2-the police are already able to enforce laws against indecent exposure. 3-toddlers, young children, the elderly and tourists unable to find facilities open will inevitably need to urinate somewhere. Pubs, cafes etc are not open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and children especially may be scared of going in when they are open. With regard to dog control, i believe certain national bodies are also getting involved and it would be better to apply national guidelines to our locality when they are available. Otherwise the legislation will be ignored and un enforced. This is already the case with SLDC's bylaws to prevent alcohol consumption in designated areas. My daughter goes to Vicarage Park School in Kendal and I am disgusted at the increasing amount of dog fouling and smashed alcohol bottles left in the surrounding field and on the children’s play area! Also very bad fouling on parts of the kirkbarrow estate. If there were more public toilets available especially in the evenings there would be less need for public urination and defecation in the streets. Elderly people cannot climb the fells to exercise their

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 185 dogs and require level ground. Urination not to do e.g. for kids when there are hardly any public toilets in certain areas - is just impossible!! That should be solved first, public toilets! Re public urination in streets. Closure of public toilets is not a good thing. Why not turn all P.Ts into paying units with an attendant. The facilities plumbing etc. are there already, See the Gill Ulverston, Skipton car park, Westmorland Centre. Regarding dogs-licensing would help to cut down numbers of dogs. I agree there is a problem on the Prom but most regular’s clean up-it is more lately to be visitors- I have offered them bags but usually get told to mind my own business. I think a much bigger problem is avoiding the stream of human urine-and also cyclists who race along and do not appear to have a bell or know how to use it. You closed public toilets bow you want to prosecute people caught short. You are a sick council!! Litter is always a major problem, and should be treated as seriously Don't remove public toilets and then expect an improvement in inappropriate urination. Make ownership of public toilets charitable and remove the need for rates to be paid by those who are after all only providing a service to the public. I know that I am wasting my time saying this as SLDC politicians will adopt their usual stance BUT strange isn’t it that you close public toilets and within weeks there are complaints about urination in the streets. I doubt the councillors will be able to link the two issues BUT to their constituents it is obvious. The toilet scheme in Kendal is a farce - there is NO obvious signage within the town of the location of these facilities - travel to Burnham on Sea which has a similar scheme (not at public expense!!) and there you will see conventional finger post signs to the nearest facility. SLDC politicians are too hung up with their own importance that they cannot think the obvious. Maybe when councillors reach a more mature age they will understand what it is like to have a weak bladder and what it is like to be caught short...... It would be helpful if more litter boxes were provided in populated areas. If the Dog Exclusion Order is to be implemented then SLDC must make provision for easily accessible dog walking areas for people to use. We would be quite happy using the field beside Grange playing field for example but would still want people to pick up dog faeces. This is what happens in Finland and both sets of residents are then happy. It is discrimination to target dog owners without giving them any alternative. We pay our taxes too. What about people whose gardens back onto Grange playing field. Are they not to be allowed to use their back gate and cross the field to the prom? I would also be interested to know how many of the complaints come from the same person! The number of public toilets available probably correlates to the number of incidents of urination in streets. There is little point in introducing control orders if you are unable to police same. SLDC might consider opening some more public conveniences!!!!!!!!! Sometimes people with small children have no choice but to allow their children to "have a wee" in the street. Kids usually can't wait!!! With the closure of our public loos this is a problem particular for visitors to the town who probably don't know which businesses allow the use of their loos. Perhaps businesses who allow public use of their loos could display a large sign. Re Q13 Need public toilets to be open and coin operated 20p single self-cleaning units available 24 hours. if you shut the public loos where are the people going to relieve themselves. Do we give them a poo bag too? I think that by closing public toilets, the council has now got more people-especially men-after drinking in pubs/clubs till late at night, urinating in the street because there are no toilets for them. The closing of public toilets is a wrong move, more so as we are a holiday area, but even for locals, at times presents a problem. Though still no excuse for doing it in the street. No toilets Better sign posting to public toilets. 1) Unsure why people can't use 'indecent exposure' to convict. 2) Not surprised urination in streets common with reduced number public toilets! Also think public not reporting incidents because no action can be taken.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 186

By closing all the public toilets you have not helped. We have gone backwards in many ways. Extending the remit to include spitting would be a good idea as this is also anti-social behaviour. For question 13, open more public toilets. It is understandable that thus occurs, especially at night when no public toilets open. You cannot make it an offence to commit an offence where there are no facilities to enable you to avoid committing it! As an elderly member of the community, if I could not access a toilet to urinate, I would have to find the most discreet place out of public view, legally or otherwise. I hope this will never be necessary, but the law wouldn't make any difference. The age at which it would be an offence is not specified. A responsible dog owner who cleans up after pet should not be penalised. Money could be spent on more pressing things-where are your priorities!!! Dogs give enjoyment, companionship and exercise too many people particularly old/disabled. The 90% of responsible owners risk being penalised for the few who don’t their animals. More policing/dog wardens are necessary to enforce any orders. Responsible dog owners may be able to help by recording/reporting offences. I pay tax for the playing fields but it is hardly used by anyone but dog walkers. If they can’t have their dogs off lead they will go to Park Road park and it will soon be too busy for me to sit and enjoy the peace and quiet. Excluding dogs from areas will move problem. Keeping dogs on leads will mean people who don’t pick up after dog will now have a dog on a lead but still won’t pick up. You need a big campaign so whole town and shops show they support picking up after dogs. This will also affect tourists who come from worse areas and don’t even think about picking up after dogs. If the field (which is hardly used by anyone except dog walkers) doesn’t allow dogs to run off lead, they will go to the bandstand park which will become ruined. Introduce the orders but provide sufficient authorised officers to enforce them!! Perhaps the increase in public urination in the street is due to the lack of public toilets? Litter on the streets and in the countryside is also a concern. Please also try to do more to tackle this, don't only come down heavy on dog owners. I particularly dislike cats fouling and disrupting the enjoyment of my garden. It seems that I have to continue accepting this as a fact of life, as perhaps a certain amount of dog fouling should be. Not clear if question 14 refers to dogs (as previous questions about dogs), or humans. Do humans crap in the streets? Can't say I've ever witnessed it. this problem mainly occurs late at night but there are no public toilets available As long as fines are ACTUALLY imposed, not just warnings Is there any consultation on the lack of public toilets in South Lakeland? This is also a major concern by residents and visitors! I understand that there is also a similar problem in areas of countryside. Maybe the byelaw can also outlaw urination and defecation in open areas. 1-Discreet urination out of the public gaze should be allowed-especially since the closure of many conveniences. Suggest blanket ban within, say 100m radius of licensed premises. 2-Litter left by humans is often a greater problem than those addressed here. More public toilets in Ulverston. Better signage needed. This problem will no doubt have been exacerbation by the closure of public toilets! The sooner people are fined for allowing a dog to foul and not clean it up the better. It is disgusting. Dog owners (some) go no further than the football field in order to exercise their dogs and don’t remove dog faeces. Does this apply to toddlers? Is only drunks. In ref to Q13 In order for this to be fair and just, there must also be an increase in both the availability and hygiene standards of the public toilets in this area! Concerned it may criminalise people (usually elderly men) with a medical condition causing "urgency" (to urinate). Now that some of the public toilets have closed what are people to do. People coming by car, get out

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 187 of the car and need the toilet where do they go. You need to have signs on all car parks telling people where they can go. Also what about outdoor events in parks etc (abbot hall had peppercorn car park Gooseholme had new road) where do people go. Very poor questionnaire. Very little information to make an informed decision, and no details about the practicalities of how the various laws may work It's a pity the fine for public urination and defecation on the streets is only half that of the fine for allowing your dog to foul the streets! It should be the same, or more! There is NO excuse for this behaviour, it's disgusting! How are you going to enforce it? Already people urinate in the alley next to my house since the public toilets were closed but I think it will be just another law which will never be enforced. The people that do it are hardly going to be deterred by a law and in any case will (in my opinion) never be prosecuted. The problem we have experienced is that a number of dog owners feel that it is ok to let their dogs run loose (off the lead) in our neighbourhood resulting in the dogs defecating in public areas when out of sight of their owners (we have video evidence of this) and also enabling them to chase other animals including cats. The owners when challenged simply shrug it off with the attitude of 'well that's what dogs do'. They need to realise the problems they are creating for other residents and their pets and that action can and will be taken against them and they are responsible of offending. Dogs should not be allowed on the rec, it is a play/activity area and sports field where adults and children are and dogs should not be allowed to roam around. The sooner the better! Connected to the previous question is a problem with parents leaving used nappies in open, public places - even on the street Many points raised would be ignored by irresponsible minority of dog owners and people urinating in public. At this time responsible members of the public could suffer from our reaction, common sense is required. Litter is also a terrible blight on our urban and rural landscape. Public urination and defecation is a total disgrace. Dog owners should be totally responsible for their dogs and dog faeces and should pay stiff penalties if they do not comply with the law. Dogs should be on leads in all public, urban areas they can be a hazard and a nuisance. The Public Urination in the Street Byelaw should go hand in hand with the provision of an adequate number of public toilets open at appropriate times. Urination and defecation in the streets might be less of a problem if public toilets were not closed. The provision of continental type 'pissoirs' may be a low cost alternative. The lack of Public Toilets is a major concern to me. The lack of provision of these, in Kendal in particular, may cause me problems outside normal shop / museum opening hours and on Sundays. I travel by bus through Kendal quite frequently. Public toilets must be reopened and properly cleaned and maintained prior to the introduction of the "public urination defection in the street" byelaw. Medical conditions in the elderly should be considered in this matter. The original rules for walking dogs in the playing field were clearly posted at the yew tree lane entrance. "Use the ....." "Dogs on leads" pick up faeces"- the sign has been removed. I walk my Labrador at 0700-07.15 every morning and no problem. The signs have long gone-of course!!! No leads for Grange Over Sands Promenade-elderly only have promenade and parks to exercise their dogs. Promenade is a nightmare with cyclists (no bells) skateboards and scooters. Dogs need a good run and play with a ball-less aggressive. All our pleasures will soon be taken away. Q13. This is nothing to do with dogs so why have the question. The more public toilets you close the more likely the problem especially during the early morning before alternative toilets are available, re Q13 With respect to Qs10 and Qs12, i feel strongly that these measures will not solve the problem, just shift it elsewhere. The fields and prom are so important to dog walking families, these measures are too constricting. They will only mean children and adults taking less exercise and enjoying grange and all it has to offer less. More public toilets well maintained are needed.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 188

I think you have a bloody cheek to close most public conveniences and then blame people for pissing on the street-it is outrageous and you should be ashamed you fail to see the irony. Also to suggest the police can’t already deal with this is nonsense-do your jobs and provide public conveniences. The problem with surveys such as this is that most people taking part will be those who have strong views, in this case against dogs. This gives an imbalanced view. There are so many dog-owners in the area, many of whom are elderly, who receive enormous benefits such as companionship and exercise from their dogs, and making regulations that decrease their enjoyment of dog ownership seems to be an example of the "nanny state" which we are all supposed to deplore. Dog fouling is a problem, and, in my view, any local government action should concentrate on that area, by providing more bins for dog waste, and perhaps having officials patrolling problem areas from time to time. As with littering, if offences were actually punished, existing bye-laws would be more effective, and perhaps passing new ones would not be seen to be necessary. Please take a practical approach to your decision on this matter-do not over prescribe. I am a dog owner and I am responsible, I understand that there are a few dog owners that do not have the good sense to "pick up" after their pets. I have often felt that fouling in public places is not Policed or taken seriously. I think dog exclusion orders are a heavy handed approach to dealing with the problems caused by a small minority of irresponsible dog owners by inconveniency and discriminating against all dog owners. It would also be difficult to enforce at a time of council cutbacks and will generate bad feeling towards the council. public toilets would help avoid this problem, surely I think Clean Streets is a tremendous initiative. We are blessed in South Lakeland with some great towns and it is our responsibility collectively to ensure we improve them to make them even more pleasant places. Should be 40MPH limits. Between Ulverston and Swarthmoor it is 40MPH. Damage to walls and disgusting things occur between Ulverston and Swarthmoor. I grew up in the Ullswater area and as a child we had several Border Collies. These went everywhere with us. Lakeside and on the fells. Would these orders ban this type of access to my dogs? What about hunts? Would the hounds be banned? cleaner streets should take in weed infested paths and council land next to private property or the council becomes a nuisance neighbour itself Please help people to comply by keeping open the public toilets. Stop persecuting dogs please. I do not support the above byelaw since the closure of numerous public loos i.e. after a night out with no buses available and having to walk home-where do you go in an emergency? I am fed up with dog poo on the Grange Promenade and playing fields and I back on to the fields every day I tell dog owners, pretending they haven’t seen their dog pooing in the field behind them they just walk on. Dogs not on leads and owners on phones! Seeing that you have closed most public toilets, what do you have to do if you are caught short? Defecation is adequately covered by the 'fouling of land by dogs' order. Urination is not, I suspect, the subject of many complaints-and in any case is hardly susceptible to control. What do you suggest? All dog walkers to carry a bottle of water to flush it?!!! My husband and I started highlighting with fluorescent spray the dog fouling on the cycle path on Oxenholme Road as it was completely disgusting. It was so bad that we ran out of spray before we got to the end. We were not aware that we could have reported it to the council but we know now. Should be orders to make people pick up litter and chewing gum. Or the existing ones enforced Please focus on Gooseholme, Castle street area, fouling by humans and dogs alike is a huge problem SLDC has shut a large number of Public Conveniences - it is therefore a bit rich for them to then complain when people wee etc in the streets! Dog fouling has improved a little, but still goes on. We live at the bottom of sheernest lane @ Holme. Many dog owners use this as a walking circuit. It would benefit more dog poo bins, also on the canal banking as well. Fed up of cleaning dog dirt off our garden because of people not keeping dogs on leads on Heron Hill. Closure of public toilets may have contributed to this. Are you really going to penalise small children

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 189 for squatting in a gutter? I welcome any measures to rid my local area of vile dog mess. There seems to be a lack of authorised officers enforcing the current laws. Let’s hope more people who flout the laws will be caught and shamed. This is a total waste of public money. ....an increase in urinating and defecating in the streets... No surprise there, then, considering some idiot decided to close public toilets all over South Lakeland. Whilst I abhor the idea of someone relieving themselves in a public place, there are occasions when it is not always possible to reach a toilet, especially on an evening when shopping centres, etc, are closed. What is one supposed to do? Has that idiot never been caught short herself?! Besides, it is a bit draughty in the cold weather and I nearly fell over once and that could have been nasty. :) Although I support the urination order, one of the problems is the lack of public toilets. With the closure of these toilets, at times, there may be no other choice but to 'go' in a secluded public place. Whilst I deplore urinating in the street and therefore support the extra powers for the police, SLDC must take some of the blame for closing public conveniences. You regularly demonstrate a lack of awareness of the importance of tourism to Cumbria - closing TICs (the sales offices), closing toilets, making our car parking charges the most expensive rural charges in the country, to name but three. SLDC made a big mistake when it closed public toilets and what did it do with the money it was supposed to save? Additional waste disposal bins may cut down on street litter. Educating the young to use bins or take litter home may help. ALL OUR LOOS HAVE BEEN CLOSED-WHERE TO GO TO THE LOO? WILL NOT PAY 20P TO GO TO LOO/SHOPPING CENTRE-ATROCIOUS Q1 The dog control order part b) does not specify the reasons which might apply in this circumstance. Q3 This is also non-specific. To agree with this may lead to the loss of access to previously accessible open spaces. The ones described here seem reasonable. Generally, dogs are not to blame, it's the owners. Public urination/defecation in the street, more likely after public houses close, no public toilets! God knows really-copy the French and have more accessible urinals. ARE YOU ALLOWED TO NIP BEHIND A BUSH TO GO TO THE LOO E.G. IN A PARK BECAUSE YOU I.E. SLDC HAVE CLOSED ALL THE PUBLIC TOILETS AND RELY ON ORGANISATIONS WITH FEWER RESOURCES TO PROVIDE FACILITIES! PERHAPS THIS PROBLEM IS PARTLY THE RESULT OF CLOSING PUBLIC TOILETS AND LOCKING SOME OF THE REMAINING ONES AT NIGHT. Once this is in place SLDC need to look at cat control. I am sick of the excuse that they cannot be controlled. Yes they can in Australia and America they do. Dogs are not allowed to foul and vomit in other peoples' property. Or rampage round killing wildlife. CATS ARE PETS WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITIES! This wouldn't be a problem if the liberals hadn't closed all the public toilets. The police already have sufficient powers. A lack of public toilets doesn't help this situation. As I am rarely in the town centre on foot at the weekend I do not come across people behaving in an antisocial way but I do feel the police need sanctions to deal with it if it is a problem. Your questionnaire is very technical speak and i don't think it is very helpful use of time and resources for conducting community consultation exercise and would help in informing policy making. 1) Good law is enforceable, bad law is not. 2) Dogs on leads are not necessarily under control. 3) Needs to be receptacles for people to place bagged dog faeces in. 4) education is the key, not regulation. 5) Other evidence needs to be considered other than that of a police officer observing a law is broken. And by the way, I am a dog owner.... but fed up of stepping in dog mess. Public: Closure of public toilets, and limited open hours of others must create some very difficult situations for people. imagine wanting a pee near Abbot hall at 9.30 am

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 190

Dogs: we get some dog poo in our garden, on the path and on the pavement outside as dogs are released from their home to run out freely with no supervision - very annoying. The path through the allotments behind Sunnyside also gets a lot of it. Worst thing I've seen: a poo bomb made by placing sealed plastic bag under a tyre. The vehicle moves and with a loud bang...... A law against dogs urinating on the pavement is utterly ludicrous and impractical. It would mean that no-one would be able to walk a dog on any pavement as there is no possible way to prevent a dog from sniffing and marking as this is natural and cannot be trained otherwise. This part of this consultation I would actively campaign against if there was any chance of it becoming law in South Lakeland. As a responsible dog owner I always clean up after my dog, be it on the pavement or a footpath in fields. She is always under my control and on a short lead whilst on the pavement. Our back garden is secure and gated and she has no access to the road. I hope that these measures are used to make all dog owners as responsible and are not used to penalise responsible owners like myself. The most valuable of these measures to me would be the dogs on lead part as Arnside is dreadful for people allowing their dogs to wander about on the road, a hazard to drivers and careful dog owners! This is not a major problem on the streets - it would be regrettable if young people were criminalised by being caught by police etc. if it was a random and foolish, thoughtless action. Why it is ok for people’s cats to wander at will fouling peoples gardens? Also find the smell of dogs urine as unpleasant as human urine although it you want to take a hard line on public urination there does need to be enough public loos You cannot stop people urinating and defecating on the streets if you continue to close down public toilets, it is ridiculous. Put the toilets back, keep them clean and keep them open and then you have a right once you have provided facilities to fine people who continue to use the street as a toilet. Has it not occurred to you that the increase of Public urination is ultimately down to the lack of any facilities provided by you the council? More (free) public toilets are needed if you are going to enforce the last point. It is no use fining people if the facilities aren't there for them to use! 1---In this area ( Endmoor) the problem with Dog Fouling also extends to horses --which produce greater quantities of waste 2-The problem of urination on the highway would be alleviated by provision of more Public Conveniences What are people to do with no toilets? Provide at least 2 open day and night in Kendal. If people refuse to use them, that is the prime to fine them. Build a new block on the New Road, holiday makers passing through need toilet facilities. Don’t fine people who have no option. This is an emotive issue and care should be taken to strike a balance between public concern over the issue and the need to recognise that an eradication of the problem is probably not possible given the popularity of dogs and the important role they play in many people’s lives I have concerns at the lack of toilets open for use in some areas. If facilities are not available what are people supposed to do? To enforce this order it is necessary to provide alternative facilities- not close public conveniences. Disappointing to see that dog fouling could incur a fine of £1000 and public fouling only £500-I think equality at least is in order there. How do you stop a dog urinating? You are banning dogs from the public streets entirely. This is stupid. You get them to the side as much as you can. You urinate them before they go out they still urinate out. I would be scared to walk my dog into town to fetch the paper or down to the vets if this came into force even putting her outside before I went. They will go if owners like it or not. This is silly we will be fining the birds next. Please do not introduce blanket measures that take away freedoms for responsible owners and their well-behaved dogs. I do however support more stringent measures for dealing with the problem few, especially dog fouling. I appreciate the opportunity to give vent to my current frustrations and found it really good to hear that you have taken a positive approach to tackling dog mess. I like dogs very much but sometimes I really dislike their owners. I don't have a dog because I work full time and would not have the time to commit

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 191 to looking after them and I think others should think about this too. Dog mess is awful and I always find myself being the responsible one in this street who goes out with a bag and cleans it up but why me - I have no dog. I also do the grit when it is icy and people appreciate that but I wonder if they know how many poos I pick up. Luckily one other neighbour also joins in. We should get a telly I know!! It's a National Park and I wish folks would appreciate how beautiful it is and how lucky we are to have this as our home. There are issues arising from the closure of public toilets in this area, particularly when street signs and maps directing people to them remain in place. Concerns for contamination to the public in general. Needs to be an easier more enforceable system to report and follow up-CCTV evidence would be needed to prove this anti-social behaviour as often done without witness. Bring back public toilets. Age restrictions. Does public include children-sometimes they need to go! Have more public conveniences open at nights or given more of small, mobile variety. Existing laws extended really necessary to have another? Seems we have so many rules and regulations people begin to take less notice of them. All the byelaws are based on common sense and responsibility. It's a pity we're raising a generation who seemingly don't give a damn or care about consequences of their "in actions". Responsible owners with well trained dogs are paying the price. Why no detailed questions on this subject We are 100 % behind the Councils proposals, and feel that this is long overdue. No If this consultation is about clean streets, then the focus needs to be on getting people to clean up after their dogs where necessary. Some of the dog orders are not directly to do with this, and if imposed too widely will cause difficulty to responsible owners trying to exercise and enjoy their dogs, and just move the dog fouling problems caused by the minority of people who do not clean up to areas where they have not been excluded. The public toilets in Kendal need re-opening it is obvious it costs more in public order if there are no toilets available. This is nonsense, when public toilets have been closed and sure the police have better things to do! In the interests of health (- risks include Roundworm eggs found in dog mess & 'toxocara canis' -) and safety for all children, dogs must not be allowed in areas specifically designed for children’s' recreation. Investment in play areas is for the benefit of young persons, NOT dogs. Dogs described as quiet/friendly need not be necessarily so when tempted by other distractions such as sticks, balls, other dogs and indeed, young persons, whatever the respective owner might think. I know there are some irresponsible dog owners but i have observed cats defecating on the public highway, footway and in open public spaces. So do we insist cat owners take them out on leads or keep them as house cats only. I think we need to go down the road of enforcement of the offenders rather than a blanket ban on every dog owner. Public urination order - will this apply to children who urinate on the parks? This idea would be shameful as public toilets have been closed Cannot believe that this happens! Could stop closing the public loos though! I presume this is more of an alcohol related issue and maybe the fact that people are allowed to get totally off their face on a night out is the issue and landlords need to be clamped down on and be more responsible Linked to Q13-OK provided that there are public toilets open for people to use in evenings and early mornings. Also I think toilets should be free, even public toilets. Who is going to enforce these measures? How will it be funded? By the ratepayers, obviously! How can offenders be prosecuted if they refuse to give their name and address? I do not think Council employees have authority to request this information. I believe the council has an obligation to provide public toilets and I feel sure any visitors to Kendal would be dismayed at the lack of basic amenities-this in a 'tourist area' after all. Hotels who state that dogs are welcome should provide a bin for faeces. I live on a public bridleway and have to remove faeces regularly. Stick and flick into verges pref. To black bags on fence. Stop closing public toilets.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 192

Officers must be rigorous in responding to reports of owners allowing their dogs to foul public areas and be strict about imposing the fines. In our area some dog owners hang the bags of faeces on bushes or throw them into the hedge. Should that not also incur fines? Yes, make the culprit clean the offending mess they make. I am very concerned with the level of dog fouling near Sandside Lodge School, Ulverston where I teach. The eco committee wrote to the council in 2010 before my maternity leave and never heard anything back from the council. Surely the answer to this problem is for SLDC to stop closing public conveniences. If all the extra flower beds and fences had not been constructed in Abbott Hall Park perhaps the toilets could have been kept open. Also, please do not spend any more of our money on New Road "landscaping"-KEEP THE CAR PARK AS IT IS. It is NOT ONLY dogs, cats also foul other people’s property and should be included in this survey. People do not appear to take any responsibility for where their cats foul the area. 1- Once again it’s a minority (a growing minority I sense) that spoils "it" for the responsible and capable owner of a dog. Pitu we have to use laws. 2- The closure of public conveniences doesn’t help-nor the vandalism that causes the closure. Re-open public toilets. Locals may know which tree to go behind but not visitors. Exclude urination order for children under 5. A lot of dog owners are very responsible regarding picking up their dog mess, but there are people who just don’t care. If they were fined they might think twice about taking bags with them when they take their dogs out walking. I don’t think there should be any penalty for a dog urinating in public; I think it’s a step too far for punishment on dog owners. WHY IS SLDC SHUTTING SO MANY PUBLIC TOILETS? ULVERSTON USED TO HAVE MANY MORE PUBLIC PRIVIES AND DIDN'T HAVE THE PROBLEMS IT HAS NOW. POLICE RESPONSE IS INCREASINGLY QUESTIONNABLE AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE BYELAW WILL BE PROPERLY SERVICES BY OUR AGENCIES WITHOUT BEING CUT TO THE QUIP BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. I have spoken to the police about Rotweilers in ULV not on a lead and was told it was not against the law. So I was mortified about that. The build urination by law is a great thing but how can you enforce it since the council have removed the toilets? Yes some businesses allow people to use their toilets but most of these shut at 5pm so if you’re out in the evening, when it's more likely you'll be drinking, there is nowhere to go? Everything you can do to help will be great. Re open all closed toilets If SLDC closes toilets what should desperate people do?! There is a problem on Gooseholme and around St. George's Church when the weather is fine and people congregate there. (The low figure of complaints for 2011 and so far in 2012 can be put down to the weather rather than a change in the attitude of some youngsters!) As with dog fouling people seem to think it is easy to dispose of litter anywhere and it won't matter with regard to the environment or a hazard to animals and other residents/elderly/children etc. All the public toilets have been closed. No wonder people are urinating in the streets. Why does SLDC turn a blind eye to all the dog fouling on and in parks in south Lakeland? If you visit any park in the area you'll find large amounts of dog fouling. Couple of open space areas in the Bowness and Windermere area you see cars pull up and the dogs jump out while the owners are talking to other people who are doing the same. Queens park and Bowness pitch and Putt areas are terrible! I HAVE NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS BUT DOGS MUST BE KEPT ON A SHORT LEAD AT ALL TIMES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. TOO MANY OWNERS LET THE DOG OFF THE LEAD AS SOON AS THEY SEE A SMALL AREA OF GRASS (OFTEN RECREATIONAL AREAS). HOW MANY OWNERS OF A DOG CAN PINPOINT AN OFFENDING ARTICLE LEFT BY THEIR DOG WHEN NOT ON A LEAD??? I'M FED UP OF FOLK WHO THINK WALKING THE DOG MEANS A QUICK TRIP TO MAUDES MEADOW OR KENDAL GREEN. I HAVE NO PROBLEM IF A OWNER TRAINS A DOG TO POO IN IT'S OWN HOUSE/GARDEN & THEN ONTO A RECREATIONAL AREA FOR EXERCISE

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 193

Re the Urination Order, SLDC needs to keep the Public Toilets open to deal with this problem, Where are people supposed to go if caught short. You reap what you sow!! Circumstances need to be considered - just what do you if you simply have to go and there are no facilities? This could be seen as rather hypocritical for a council that has driven through the closure of public conveniences in the face of opposition. It can also be considered ageist - perhaps when councillors and council officers reach their 60's they might not be so keen on this proposed legislation.. If a policy to punish urination or defecation in public places is to be enforced then alternatives must be provided. We cannot close toilets and then be too surprised if people do it in public places. This is part of a greater problem of public drunkenness. Controlling pubs is the solution. Try to remember what representation involves. It is for the people by the people. Try not to treat us like imbeciles, as we are the employers and he customer. If there were toilets available this wouldn't happen. I have seen the special bins trialled in London for men to use and think they are amazing. Maybe a cheap answer to the problem? I think the police are busy enough without filling the cells with people who have no bladder control. The police stations are closing down so where will you put these people?? taking action against urination by members of the public needs to be backed by better provision of public toilets It can be difficult for people with young children who require to urinate when there is no immediate toilet facility. This law, though good, will not be enforceable unless there are sufficient well-maintained public toilets available 24 hours a day. A country is judged by the state of its public toilets and this area of the UK is falling behind. It's shameful! I would say that it is imperative that this recommendation is accepted and that it is put in place. I would also say that it is imperative that SLDC find ways in which these orders can be backed up and supported once they are in place, to ensure that dog owners take them seriously. It would help if there was more access to decent public toilets throughout the day. If there were enough public toilets there would not be a problem to the same extent. The urination byelaw is disproportionate to the number of complaints, and is an 'own goal' for the council given the numbers of public toilets which have been closed. Better to focus effort on ensuring good provision of public toilets, available 24/7 Not good on a Sunday morning in shop doorways. Dog owning is about respect/responsibility to the area and others. Where do cats fit into this? Dog fouling is the main issue-dangerous. If you shut all the toilets this is what you get. Byelaws are useless unless properly enforced by prosecution and punishment (if guilty). Fines for transgression of byelaws are often useless because they are often not paid or collected. Q.13. More-clean public toilets and access to more toilets in more areas. Your question is unclear whether you are asking about a dog or a human. A dog cannot help urinating in the street. A human should be prosecuted. My answer to Q.13. It’s not only drunks that have a bladder/bowel problem. If you NEED TO GO, YOU NEED TO GO! Where are all the public toilets? Need more 24 hr. public toilets: clean and no fee payable for using. I wish you success in all of this but doubt if you will have the money, to really get to grips with these problems! As a cyclist who has twice been bitten for no reason by dogs (once needing stitches at A+E) I would just like to say there is no comeback against the owners realistically. There have also been a lot of sheep killed recently by dogs - the irresponsible owners should be heavily fined and the farmers compensated by the owners as well. I don't understand question 14. I think you are referring to dogs not the general public. I think you are referring to urination only and not defecation. I have answered it with the above assumptions in mind. It will be interesting to see if these suggestions for dog controls will be followed up by officers I have not heard of anyone who has been fined for letting their dog foul the street and ail to pick this up yet.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 194

I find it unbelievable that people find it necessary to toilet in a public place. This is a reflection on society. Not only should they be fined they should also be named and shamed. I would make the bye- law for all areas irrespective of speed limits. Humans should reach adulthood knowing that there are some things you do in private and not in public. I find it disgusting to observe urination and defecation by fellow humans in public. But I do think that SLDC are partly to blame because they closed down so many public toilet facilities. Urination and defecation are natural functions and if there are facilities provided most likely the majority of folk would use them... If you've got to 'go', you've got to 'go'. But pregnant women, sick people and the elderly possibly need more facilities. And if they are not there, nature will take its course, whatever the mores at the time. South Lakeland is a tourist area which is visited by countless individuals, myself included, with their dogs specifically because it is perceived as Dog Friendly. If dog control orders are introduced we will not be visiting again. q13-If all the public toilets were open this would be less of a problem. q14-with all the small houses, flats, gardens, etc, out at work all day, a quick 10min walk am/pm why have a dog, these are called pet lovers! This problem would not exist if the public loos had remained open. But you also have to provide public lavatories. So why, for instance, do you close the toilets on the prom at Grange? The ageing population means that people need relief more often, and you should recognise that. Although dog fouling not a problem in my village. It is bad in others in south lakes e.g. Staveley, Sedbergh. I have just become a mum and walking around with pram is like an obstacle course! Only this week at cockshott point was I horrified by amount. Also the playground in Sedbergh on the maryfell estate is normally covered and has made it hard work to visit when I take my class as a teacher. It says no dogs but it’s often round the equipment. Would the public urination and defecation apply to alleys/cuts/footpaths through routes in housing areas as well as 30mph limits? There must be public toilets. Closing them was the most foolish decision. Grasmere toilets (20p entry) are spotless-why not Kendal? Open up some public toilets in towns. Public toilets maintained by SLDC. Set example: more prosecution and control for dog fouling these control areas should be enforced. I think sldc and the police already have enough rules to deal with the issues here, but am not sure they have the man power or the inclination to concentrate on these issues. it seem to me they want to restrict more peoples freedom with more rules when they cannot or do not enforce the ones they already have in place, the cost of signs and new laws to be put in place i feel would be better spent using the current laws but following them up and actually doing something about these issues instead of just talking about new ways to deal with them. I would like to consider extended exclusion areas-all areas near to play areas and sections of Castle Hill, Kendal i am not a resident of your area but i have been here on holiday for the last decade or so with my dogs, if these orders are implemented and my dogs freedom curtailed i will take my business elsewhere, there is no need for these proposals as you already have enough powers but lack the will or staff to implement them. Fully support the Public Urination and Defecation bylaw - it’s a no brainer The dog bylaw I think will have no weight and I doubt it'll have any impact on the current problem Re dog control, prefer persuasion rather than penalties-this would make for a happier community. Money on this project could have been better spent on important items like the prom at Grange. I think this is a good initiative. More public toilets would be useful. I do feel that if the council had not closed the public toilets so readily maybe there wouldn’t be quite the problem. I have reported my neighbour who is irresponsible letting his dog wander and foul on other people’s property- nothing gets done by SLDC!!!

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 195

Dog fouling on pavements and lanes without pavements, often with limited lighting is cause for most concern, especially at night (even with a torch). Bird fouling on promenades (Bowness/Waterhead) can be a problem though localised. Horses/cattle sheep etc is NOT a problem because it occurs in the road where you can see it. There should be a law also for horses fouling public paths and roads, should be made to wear a kind of catchment bag (i.e. like horses on Blackpool Prom). Unless all these orders are properly enforced it will be a total waste of time and public money. My concern is how are these measures going to be implemented will all the financial restraints in operation? Q13- will be difficult to enforce unless officers are about during the night time. I am a dog owner and I entirely support the principle do keeping streets an pavements free of dog mess, but a blanket requirement for leads no matter why the dog or owners temperament and capability is draconian and will tarnish the reputation of the south lakes as a place thy welcomes dogs. Kendal is one of the worst places in the UK I have seen for dog fouling. Many public places are simply out of bounds for kids to play because of the problem. More legislation causes reaction and confrontation and resentment-education/public choice better, desire to/not forced. I think, given there are so many dogs around, and not all owners are responsible, more regulations and help (i.e. dog waste bins) can only be a good thing. I work as a carer and often worry about elderly clients stepping on dog faeces because they can't see properly. The problem with public urination/defecation is more a problem of excess alcohol consumption than anything else. Who is going to patrol the streets catching drunks relieving themselves? And, if they are caught in action, how are officials going to stop the act - by talking about fines? Who is going to clean up the mess? It seems impractical to make rules around the end-product of binge drinking. Better to try and devise ways of stopping people over-indulging in the first place. I'm not sure how other countries tackle it but we seem to have a bigger problem than most. Maybe we could learn from others? This is complicated. Do events happen at night when no public toilets? Is it due to alcohol? Illness? Perhaps some nice design of pay cabin style toilets are called for as no toilets in most parks. I would hope that these could be enforced because as someone with mobility problems I daren't walk my dog alone in case another dog attacks. Everywhere where I live, dogs are off lead and all you get shouted at you is "he won't hurt you." Really? Well it could knock me off my feet at least, and frankly I don't think I should wait to find out whether it will hurt me! ALL dogs should be on leads at a ALL times, and banned from certain areas too. I speak as someone with several dogs myself. Also, where I live there is dog mess everywhere - they deliberately bring dogs out to foul. One person - a policeman - even lets his dog out onto my cul de sac to mess on people's doorsteps, frequently. We lived in Australia for a short time. In Australia there were very strict rules about dogs being on leads, and dogs fouling in public. In all parks, bags were made available at the entrance for dog owners to take to pick up the poo and a bin specifically for dumping the bags into when you left. Fines were high and you never saw dog poo on the street. In comparison we also lived in Carlisle and when walking a short distance from the house to the shops (100m) I counted 30 piles of dog poo on the pavement. I complained regularly to the council who said they had Dog patrol officers but it never got better. If there are lots of notices and heavy fines people will get the message? It is also important that people understand that plastic does not decompose so there is no point in picking up the dog poo, putting it in a plastic bag and then throwing it in the bushes as they regularly do on Sedbergh Road. The next issue you should tackle is litter and fly tipping on the roads. It's a disgrace. Whilst I despise acts of public urination committed by those who are too drunk or disorderly to contain themselves there is a problem for people who are 'caught short' in areas where public toilets have closed. There are differing categories of people involved and it will be difficult to apply a blanket rule. There is probably a clear correlation between the increasing incidence of public urination and the decline in availability of public toilets. People only urinate/defecate in the street because there are no public toilets available local and parish councils are closing them down tag lag. Adopt a friendlier method install the continental "Pissoir" type

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 196 of facilities in streets, people will use them instead of urinating in shop doorways after the pubs and bars kick out. It’s depressing to note the number of persons that are unable or unwilling to find access to a toilet. I live next to the Muga on brockbeck and most evenings, weekends, in fact anytime can look out of my window and see an older teenager, male and female in the corner of the field against the carpet warehouse wall relieving themselves. The wall is constantly wet and it must stink in that area. They also defecate. We have called Police but it still happens. In a way that is worse than dogs fouling as they seem to have no shame and don’t care who is watching. I also feel bad letting my grandchildren go and play on the grass or on the park in case they see something they should not see. Problem is as the number of toilets have been reduced - what are people supposed to do? One of the quaint aspects of Kendal is all the alleyways and if people are fined for doing it they should not do it again and send out a warning to others. It is usually drunkards who perform this act. I have a weak bladder. It is a recognised condition in Diabetics. You have seen fit to close down a lot of public conveniences even though I answered a consultation against closure of any one these toilets. Yes you can bring in this but only if I get issued with a card that says that due to my age (59) and health problems I am allowed to have a pee when I am desperate. I, of course, do not do this openly but keep myself hidden as much as possible. But since you partly caused me to have this problem by closing down the public loos you could at least give me an allowance to do so in extremity. Or do you want all old people just to piss their pants? All of the above refers to peeing, not to shitting which I don't have a problem with. The majority of Dog Owners are law abiding citizens who are let down by the minority, maybe in time, if enough offending owners are caught this will eventually change the culture of what being a responsible dog owner means. There is more litter left in the streets than dog mess e.g. broken bottles You need to get your priorities sorted Public Toilets must be readily available To reduce the problem - why not re-open the public toilets, and open more? You have to look at why people urinate or defecate in the street. Is it because there is no public toilet available? Most of the public toilets have been closed and this can cause problems. We have to be sure that the lack of public toilet is not the reason behind this behaviour. You must have all the toilets open without charge 24/7/365 and build many more in all areas

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 197

Responses by Letter and Email

Dear Sir,

Clean Streets Consultation This Council considered the Clean Streets Consultation documents at its recent meeting and I was instructed to convey the council's views to you.

Dog Control Orders Council was unable to reach a consensus on this matter as there are many conflicting views within the parish. Several local electors attended the meeting and put forward their views for and against with great passion. Council decided that as it was not possible to get a majority one way or the other they would not submit a formal view but councillors and residents present were given copies of the consultation questionnaire and urged to complete and return them to you direct.

Public Urination and Defecation in the Street Council resolved that this proposal should be opposed as it was considered to be a rather large sledgehammer to crack a nut. Members had some sympathy for the idea and agreed that the problem needed tackling. However they were concerned that while the proposed bye-law would give the police more powers, it could also lead to unreasonable action against innocent people. Issuing fixed penalty notices to all alleged offenders could become the norm rather than a degree of common sense being used. Members claimed that on occasions mothers had no option but to allow their small children to urinate in the street gutter as there was nowhere else for them to go in an emergency now that most of the public toilets have been closed. Also what would happen if an adult could not "hold on" until they found a toilet and wet themselves in the street? This is apparently a serious problem for adults receiving treatment for water retention related ailments. Members felt that: the police already have adequate powers to deal with these problems when they arise and alleged culprits have the opportunity to defend themselves in court if they wish; the problem has probably in part been caused by the closure of public toilets; and a bye-law would probably cause more problems than it would solve.

I hope these comments are helpful

S T Simpson Clerk of Staveley with Ings Parish Council

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 198

DOG CONTROL ORDERS

Fouling of Land by Dogs Order

Question 5 Colton Parish Council supports the fouling of land by dogs order for urban areas and villages and car parks where bins are provided, but is strongly opposed to the proposal to apply it to open countryside for the following reasons:

i. There is already a growing problem with proliferation of plastic bags full of dog faeces littering the countryside. This is a far worse environmental problem than dog poo on its own, which naturally biodegrades. ii. It is unreasonable to expect dog owners to pick up poo unless you provide bins to put it in within reasonable distance. If bins are provided and regularly emptied in countryside car parks, then we might support the order applying to car parks (and within a short distance of them) iii. If the order is to apply to open countryside, who is going to police dog fouling on the fells? This is unclear. iv. How will people be notified about where dog fouling is an offence and where it isn’t – will there be signs up over the fells where public land changes to private? We feel this is not desirable. v. Dogs are just one (relatively small) source of faeces in the open countryside – other animal faeces can also carry disease. It would clearly be a nonsense to start applying such orders to other animals – so why dogs in particular?

Question 6 i. Education/information for dog owners and the provision of bins in towns and larger villages. ii. In open countryside, we strongly advise the application of the Forestry Commission’s very sensible instructions, as follows: “No one likes to see discarded dog waste bags. We are trying to encourage people to use ‘stick and flick’ in the forest, if your dog fouls the path in the forest please us a stick to remove the waste from the path into the undergrowth where it can break down naturally. If your dog fouls near the information centre, car parks or other sensitive areas we ask you pick up the waste and use the normal waste bins provided.”

The Dog Exclusion Order

Question 10 Colton PC fully supports its application to play areas and sports pitches, but would have concerns if it began to be applied to other public areas.

Dogs on Leads Order

Question 12 Whilst the order might be supported for highways and pavements in urban areas and on classified roads, the Parish Council feels strongly that it is not appropriate on unclassified rural roads (which may include for example unmetelled roads/green lanes). In addition, can we assume that SLDC are not proposing that working farm dogs are to be kept on leads when working sheep/cows on rural roads, some of which are classified roads?

PUBLIC URINATION AND DEFECATION IN THE STREET

Question 14 Whilst the Parish Council supports this proposal in principal, people must be given adequate facilities open throughout the day until late in the evening. The closure of many public toilets in South Lakeland is a strong concern – this needs to be addressed first before imposing the by-law.

Mandy Lane (Clerk) Colton Parish Council

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 199

South Lakeland District Council South Lakeland House Lowther Street Kendal Cumbria LA9 4DQ

20 July 2012

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Dog Control Order Consultation in South Lakeland

The Kennel Club is the governing body of dogs in the amongst whose main objective is to promote in every way the general improvement of all dogs and encourage responsible dog ownership.

As part of its External Affairs activities the Kennel Club runs a dog owners group KC Dog, which was established to monitor and keep dog owners up to date about dog related issues, including dog control orders being introduced across the country.

We have some concerns regarding your five dog control order proposals, which include (1) Dogs on Leads and (2) the Exclusion of Dogs. I have enclosed our briefing on Dog Control Orders for information; however, I would like to outline the reasons for our concern below.

Firstly, I would like to remind you of the intention of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 to give local authorities the powers to implement Orders only that are necessary and proportionate responses to problems caused by dogs. Defra’s guidance on the Act states that: “It is important for any authority considering a dog control order to be able to show that this is a necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them and; Any authority needs to balance the interest of those in charge of dogs against the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs and that a failure to give consideration to these factors could make any subsequent dog control order vulnerable in the Courts.”

To turn to your specific proposals the Kennel Club does not normally oppose orders to exclude dogs from playgrounds, bowling greens or recreational facilities, as long as alternative provisions are made for dog walkers in the vicinity. Also, we would point out that children and dogs should be able to socialise together quite safely under adult supervision. However, in respect to sport pitches, we would ask that you consider whether or not these restrictions are absolutely necessary and whether, in the latter case, time-limited restrictions could be introduced to cover use of pitches for sporting purposes.

Furthermore, the Kennel Club believes that so long as dogs are kept under effective control (keeping the dog within sight and being confident that it will return on command) off-lead there should be no reason to restrict them in this way in public spaces. We would ask you to review the ‘Dogs on Lead’ proposal and consider instead introducing a ‘Dogs on Leads by Direction’ order.

In order to help South Lakeland Council and your authorised officers with defining what an out of control dog is, we have provided our definition below:

“Given that a dog under control is one that will obey its owner on command, whether on the lead or off the lead, KC Dog considers an out of control dog to be one behaving in such a way that would cause personnel trained in dog behaviour to reasonably believe that there was a significant possibility that through the actions of the owner in not controlling the dog, it would cause damage, distress, or

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 200 physical harm (accidental or otherwise) to people or other dogs”.

We would also like to stress that the authorised officer enforcing the order must be properly trained in dog behaviour in order to determine whether restraint is necessary. We would also recommend that the authorised officer only be able to direct a person to put their dog on a lead if the dog is not under proper control. There is a danger that, through no fault of its own, a dog could be a ‘nuisance’ or ‘annoyance’ to another person who simply does not like dogs.

Ultimately, any proposal to restrict or exclude access for dogs to public spaces should simultaneously establish dog friendly areas of open land within the same location; the accessibility of alternative routes already available and potential negative effects on government targets for health and reducing congestion.

We have found that other local authorities which have similar problems have typically experienced a reduction in dog canine incidents by holding an event such as a ‘Responsible Dog Day,’ where officers can discuss the needs of dog owners in relation to the citing of bins or existing signs which advise the public on where to dispose of dog faeces. Such events can be run for a small incurred cost of £500 – which is often deemed to be cheaper than setting up public display notices, running a public consultation and acquiring signs displaying information about new orders in your council.

I would like to take this opportunity to invite South Lakeland Council to sign up to the Kennel Club’s KC Dog campaign. There are no entry requirements, but consulting with KC Dog, or keeping KC Dog up to date with what your Council is doing is a good way to keep in touch with our dog-owning members. For more information visit www.thekennelclub.org.uk/kcdog and to join, email [email protected].

I hope you take these points into consideration and I hope that you find the enclosed briefing of use. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Yours sincerely,

Denisa Delic Public Affairs Officer The Kennel Club

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 201

South Lakeland District Council South Lakeland House Lowther Street Kendal Cumbria LA9 4DQ.

Dear Sir / Madam,

Re Dog Control Orders Consultation.

I am writing to express my views on the proposed dog control orders and on the consultation itself.

Your consultation questionnaire is presented in such a way as to suggest that dog fouling is such a considerable problem in our area that it would be irresponsible not to support the introduction of these orders. You state that it has been published in South Lakeland News that dog fouling was a problem for 81% of residents. Having a scientific background does make me sceptical about accepting isolated statistical statements such as this. I apologise if I missed it but I do not recall as a resident having been asked whether dog fouling was a problem for me. Would you be kind enough to let me know what the size the surveyed population was for this statistic? If as I suspect it is a relatively small surveyed population in relation to the actual population of the South Lakes it is a little disingenuous to make this your opening statement. The 146 reported incidents of dog fouling in 2011 is, I suspect, a more rigorous representation of the problem and would seem to indicate a much smaller percentage of the actual population actually have a problem with dog fouling. You go on to qualify that the majority of complainants live in urban areas of South Lakeland. Please could you elucidate which statistical measure of significance you have applied to your statement regarding the number of complaints from rural residents? I suspect that you have merely used the word “significant” to suggest that dog fouling in rural areas is actually more of a problem than it truly is. It can only be “significant” if supported in a mathematical argument by rigorous statistical methods. The representation of these figures as factual statements in your opening statements has the effect of leading your respondents towards being more favourable to supporting the dog control orders which you propose and introduces a bias to the questionnaire. I also suspect that you are seeking to pacify a minority of vocal residents at the expense of a much larger group.

My personal experience of the cleanliness of streets in the area (and as a marathon runner I travel a fair few miles of streets and country lanes in my training) is that they are very clean. We should continue to encourage this, not just by responsible dog ownership, but with avoidance of littering, which sadly seems to be more of a problem.

My concerns about the proposed dog control orders are as follows: • Enforcement. • Impact on responsible dog owners currently resident in the South Lakes. • Lack of impact on irresponsible dog owners resident in the South Lakes. • Welfare of dogs. • Impact on tourism.

Enforcement.

The first two orders can only be implemented if there are people authorised to implement them with a real presence in the area. I had assumed that there were already byelaws requiring dog owners to pick up and dispose of dog waste in existence and if these are failing as your opening statement leads us to believe, then introducing this order will make no difference. The Dogs on Leads by Direction Order appears to be another piece of legislation which is largely unenforceable. Are you really suggesting that we will have paid council employees patrolling the streets to ensure that dogs are put onto leads?

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 202

What happens when the officer moves on? How much coverage of the area can you realistically hope to achieve? The final two proposed orders are enforceable through public notices banning dogs from certain areas if this is policed, and since my concerns with these orders lie elsewhere I will return to these in the relevant sections.

Impact on Responsible Dog Owners and Lack of Impact on Irresponsible Dog Owners.

Residents in the area are already limited with regard to accessible areas to exercise dogs. In rural areas farm land is often stocked making dog walking on public footpaths and bridleways difficult, especially at sensitive times such as the lambing season.

The effect of introducing these dog control orders is that dog owners who remove their dogs’ faeces and have proper control over their dogs are being restricted and stigmatised alongside less responsible owners. In Grange-over-Sands the playing fields and promenade are two areas where it is currently possible to exercise dogs off the lead. Dog owners should quite rightly be encouraged to remove dog faeces, and notices and bins for waste should be provided with penalties for non- compliance. The playing fields in Grange-over-Sands are separated from the children’s playground by fencing and responsible dog owners keep their dogs well away from this area. If dogs are not allowed to exercise on these areas off the lead, many dog owners will have nowhere to exercise their dogs, particularly if elderly or infirm, or if they lack transport. I would suggest that if you do intend to close these areas to dogs you should consider providing an open space for dog walking, where dogs can be allowed to exercise freely off the lead as a fair compromise to the dog owning population. The third and fourth listed dog control orders are entirely directed towards trying to restrict free exercise of dogs in the area and have little to do with controlling dog waste – the cynic in me suspects that this is your main intention in introducing these orders under the umbrella intention of controlling dog waste.

As an example of irresponsible dog ownership and the complete ineffectuality that your dog control orders would have in these circumstances, I have once seen a member of public open their front door in Grange-over-Sands to let their dog out onto the street unaccompanied to do its toilet whereupon it returned to its doorstep to await being let back in. Do you really think that dog control orders will have any effect on this sort of owner? How can you enforce them when the owner of the dog is not even present with their animal?

Welfare of Dogs.

As a veterinary surgeon I have concerns that making it more difficult to exercise dogs will result in an increase in canine obesity and associated problems, such as heart disease and arthritis. In addition it is a natural behaviour for dogs to be able to run off the lead. In order to satisfy this natural behaviour there is a need for dogs to be under control by their owner, but there is clearly a need to have areas where it is possible for dog owners to be able to take their dogs and be allowed to exercise them.

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 9 makes it a requirement for a person responsible for an animal to ensure that its needs are met, including the need to be protected from disease (such as obesity) and the need to exhibit normal behaviour patterns. I would suggest that your proposed dog control orders restrict the ability of a dog owner to meet this legal requirement, in return for a dubiously achievable benefit.

Impact on Tourism.

My final concern is that by the introduction of these dog control orders you are effectively stating to visitors to the region that we welcome them, but please do not bring your dogs. As a veterinary surgeon I meet a lot of visitors to the region, who are holidaying with their dogs. Many stay in Grange- over-Sands and walk them along the promenade and exercise them on the playing fields. Without local knowledge of alternative places they can take their dogs, do you really think they will continue to

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 203 visit the Lakes if you remove their options for exercising their dogs? Would it not be better to send the message that we welcome responsible dog owners, by providing exercise areas, with notices reminding owners of their responsibilities and more bins for dog waste disposal?

Finally I should perhaps mention the inclusion of the Public Urination and Defaecation in the Street byelaw. I would support this measure if it meant that a person acting irresponsibly, possibly after overconsumption of alcohol were to commit such an offence. However, could you ensure that an overzealous official would not apply it to a parent of a toddler caught in need, especially given the ever dwindling numbers of public conveniences? I am also slightly amused that the penalty attached to this order is only half that for a dog to defaecate in the street, which is clearly twice as offensive.

I very much hope that you will consider these views in your consultation as I do not think that you have considered the impact in a number of areas, and I consider that a positive, proactive approach is far better than a negative, reactive one.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew Wattam.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 204

I would definitely support some kind of dog control order and for a public byelaw to give Police the relevant power to take action.

The pavements in our village are disgusting and are a health risk.

Cleaner Streets for all! Yes please.

One major difficulty is the amount of on street parking, which makes the the task of cleaning the streets almost impossible. Another comment I would like to make is that with this increase in street parking it becomes difficult for the road drainage system to be maintained efficiently. My husband and I recently spent a lovely break in the lake district (south lakes). This was the first time we have visited the area and we were fortunate to find a dog friendly hotel. We found that the area is just perfect for walking with our four legged friends! My husband and I are very responsible dog owners and always clean up after the inevitable but I have to comment that for a district that is so `dog friendly' there is a distinct lack of dog waste bins which really surprised me. It was rather disappointing to see the amount of dog mess along the banks of Lake Windermere but perhaps not surprising as once having picked `it' up, there was nowhere to put `it'! I would have thought that as a council you would have been encouraging responsible dog ownership while at the same time encouraging visitors with their four legged friends. I will be visiting the area again in October and it would be nice to see more dog waste bins. Yes, I strongly approve. The more control orders the better. Hi just about to go on holiday for two weeks but would like to register my support for any action to eliminate dog waste in public areas and promote responsible attitudes to owning a dog. I believe there is a form to register support, could that be emailed to me. My husband and I were extremely pleased to read the article in the Westmorland Gazette on the plans for tighter controls on dogs around Kendal. We own a dog and consider ourselves to be considerate dog owners; picking up dog poo, keeping the dog on a lead when in public places and making sure that our dog is always under control. We have to say though that recently we have been outraged on several occasions where dog owners have been irresponsible and inconsiderate.

We live in the Castle Green area and regularly walk around the area with our dog. The situation with dog mess has got worse and worse over the last year to the point where we now don't walk down certain roads. I Have contacted the council on two occasions and apart from some extra stickers on lamp posts detailing fines, nothing has been done. We have had dog poo several metres into our driveway on two occasions and have seen similar on at least 2 other driveways in the area recently.

People often walk their dogs off leads around the road and twice I have had a dog off the lead charge at ours (who is always on a lead on the road) threateningly, and the owners response has been to do nothing to call their dog back. Just last week I witnessed a dog running across our road and up and down people's driveways. I assumed it had escaped until a further 2-3 minutes later a woman appeared with another dog (also off a lead), and called it over. It could have pood and peed all over and she was nowhere to be seen! This is not the only dog owner in the area who lets their dog run ahead without seeing where they are and what they are doing.

Our dog was also attacked last year along the canal path. We we're out running and a large dog (ridgeback size) which was off the lead bit our dog as we ran past, completely unprovoked! All we got was a mouthful of abuse from the owners and a hefty vets bill to stitch our dog back up! A community police officer was at the scene and I have to say was completely useless!

We would welcome any new proposals to reduce dog mess on the streets and make dog owners more responsible for their pets and their actions.

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 205

Why are we consulting the public about the possible implementation of Dog Control Orders? People have strong views about dogs, whether they are about dog fouling or the rights of dog owners to exercise their dogs. Therefore any changes to dog controls require consultation with the public. In previous years dog control has been through the use of Byelaws and by the Dogs Fouling of Land Act (DFLA). These Byelaws had to be approved by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State approved various sets of Byelaws over time. The DFLA allows us to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) but is limited in its scope as to the areas to which it applies. The Government is seeking to streamline and simplify these legal controls and are allowing (under the new Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (CN and EA 2005)) Councils to decide for them where and how dogs should be controlled by making dog control orders. Dog control orders will replace all the existing Byelaws and replace the DFLA.

What does the consultation seek to do? The consultation is aimed at balancing the interests of dog owners and the rest of the public. The consultation seeks to obtain information and opinions from local residents and other groups (local access groups, police, schools etc.). We hope to achieve this balance from the public consultation we are now carrying out in order to develop a policy that meets requirements without being overly restrictive for responsible dog owners. In considering problems caused by dogs in urban areas I earnestly hope you do not redirect dog owners to rural areas where there are significant difficulties already. You need to address the problem of dogs, town and countryside. As the population grows dog-related problems will be exacerbated. It is time to change the culture and to require dog owners to take responsibility for their animals.

I spend a lot of time on Scout Scar and Helsington Barrows, so I am aware of the range of problems caused by dogs and irresponsible dog owners. It is the single negative aspect of that lovely area.

Farmers experience difficulties from dog walkers who cross Kendal Race Course and do not put their dogs on a lead. It's not just lambing time when grazing stock need protection. A farmer's livelihood is threatened by dogs running wild.

Then, they enter zones where there are ground- nesting birds 1 March to the end of July. And hares, lizards, adders. Again, it is rare to see a dog on a lead. They do untold damage to wildlife. The sheer quantity of urine and excrement causes problems to wildlife too.

The proximity of Scout Scar to Kendal means that for many local people it is the only place they can walk without driving or taking a bus. To encounter dogs running wild up there is not unusual. It can be intimidating. I know several elderly walkers who have been knocked off their feet, thumped and scratched by large dogs. To anyone walking alone that experience is alarming. And intolerable.

Clear and simple regulations need to be in place for rural areas like Scout Scar, bye-laws requiring dogs to be on a lead at all times... Up to date notices on stiles giving access to the Scar. At present, dogs disturb and harm farm animals and wildlife. And ruin a walk for people who don't want their personal space invaded by out of control dogs. I strongly object to the proposed bylaw fine for urination in public because the provision of public toilets has become even more unsatisfactory with the closure of many public facilities, especially for use outside shop hours.

I doubt if the new penalties will result in a reduction in offences.

(I would fill in the online survey, but the full link is not given in the PDF Clean Streets Summary and a search of the site does not reveal it either).

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 206

I write to add my support for the proposal to ban dogs from recreation grounds. This is particularly applicable to Staveley recreation ground. The field is used regularly by the football team for home matches, and you only have to look at the number of greener and more luxuriant grass patches on the field to see how many dogs perform there. Even if the owners put the mess in plastic bags [they don’t always especially round the perimeter of the field] not all the mess is of the right consistency to be properly picked up. It seems ridiculous to me that in the midst of the countryside with a multitude of public footpaths dog owners bring their animals to the recreation ground at all... I have seen people turn up in their cars to take the dogs on to the ‘rec’. How lazy and inconsiderate people are!

Clean Streets Consultation Full Report Page 207