MIDDLESBROUGH COUNCIL EXECUTIVE REPORT

Albert Park Dog Control Order Review Executive Member for Community Protection: Julia Rostron Director of Environment: Mike Robinson 14 December 2010

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1. To report back to the Executive on the outcome of a public consultation on a proposal to amend to the existing Dog Control Order in Albert Park.

2. To ask the Executive to amend the existing Dog Control Order, to extend the existing dog exercise area along the park’s Western and Northern perimeters, with the exception of 8.30am and 10.30am on Saturdays, when dogs shall be required to be kept on a lead throughout the park.

3. To update the Executive on the campaign to reduce anti social and criminal behaviour in the park and the voluntary code of practice for dog owners in Albert Park.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

4. That the Executive makes a determination to amend the Dog Control Order in Albert Park as described in the public consultation.

IF THIS IS A KEY DECISION WHICH KEY DECISION TEST APPLIES?

It is over the financial threshold (£75,000) It has a significant impact on 2 or more wards X Non Key

DECISION IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE

6. For the purposes of the scrutiny call in procedure this report is

Non-urgent X Urgent report

If urgent please give full reasons

1 BACKGROUND AND EXTERNAL CONSULTATION

7. On August 31, 2010 the Mayor considered a report outlining the outcome of a review of the operation of the existing Dog Control Order in Albert Park. Having considered the contents of the report and representations made by park users he ordered as follows:

A. That there be a sustained and relentless campaign to deal with the criminal element who frequent this park and allow their fighting dogs and other types to roam the park whilst their owners invariably consume alcohol in the alcohol free zone. Their behaviour will not be tolerated at all. B. A dog owner’s code of practice will be drawn up, which will not be mandatory but advisory. C. That the zone where dogs are allowed off leads should remain and be extended to cover much of the northern area, beginning approximately 100 metres within the park from the entrance near to the lake. A new area being proposed should extend from the east to the west for the whole length and will meet the existing zone. The trees to the South of that length together with other man-made features will form a natural boundary. D. Between the times of 08:30am and 10:30am each Saturday all dogs will be kept on leads in all parts of the park so that no interference from dogs off leads affect the 5k run. E. The arrangements will be monitored and a further review document will be placed before the Executive within 12 months or sooner if appropriate.

8. Items C is identified on the map below, showing the existing exercise area marked in black dots and the proposed extension marked in white dots. C and D require the results of a statutory consultation to be considered before a change to the Order currently in force can be determined. This report identifies the outcome of that consultation, together with an update on the other decisions.

Map of Park Showing Proposed Extension to Dog Exercise Area

2 9. A public consultation was commenced on September 27, 2010, ending October 27, 2010. This included, as required by regulations, placing signs advertising the proposals in the park, placing a public notice in the Evening Gazette, and placing details on the Council’s web site. In addition, a questionnaire was distributed in the park, a copy was e-mailed to all elected members, and copies were distributed through the Community Council Representatives for Park, Clairville and University wards. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1 to this report.

10. The questionnaire asked, for each of the two proposals, whether the respondent supported the proposal (yes/no answer) and left space to comment. There were 31 responses received via the paper questionnaire and six through website consultation, though not everyone answered both questions. The combined responses show there is overwhelming support for both proposals. Table 1 overleaf shows numerically the outcome of questionnaire/website consultation and Appendix 2 to this report contains the detail of the responses made in the comments box. Several responses were received that did not comment directly on the proposed amendments and these have been detailed in Appendix 2. They include one suggestion for a greater off-lead area and general comments about the park and the Order.

Question Yes No Per cent supporting Do you support the extension to the dog 22 11 66 control area? Do you support the proposal to keep 22 9 71 dogs on leads throughout the park from 8.30am till 10.30am on a Saturday.

Table 1 – Numerical responses to each proposal.

Code of Practice for Dog Owners

11. A draft code of practice was sent for comment to the Park Manager, operational enforcement staff and a representative of the dog walkers for comment. As a result the Code of Practice has been finalised and is attached as Appendix 3 to this report.

Campaign to Deal with the Criminal Element

12. Following the Executive decision, the Safer Middlesbrough Partnership produced a scanning document identifying, from previous reports, when criminal activity was most likely to occur. The issue was also raised at the Problem Solving Group (PSG) 3 on September 27, 2010 who resolved to support the issue. The Street Wardens, were tasked to patrol the park. Between September 17 and October 27, the Street Warden Service carried out 57 pro-active patrols in the park. They reported a total of 30 incidents including four of drinking alcohol, nine antisocial behaviour, nine breaches of the Dog Control Order and one breach of an ASBO. The man caught drinking in the park was in breach of his ASBO and was arrested with help from the CCTV operators and the police. In another incident the Wardens confiscated the alcohol being drunk illegally. Community Protection

3 Service attended the park including five times during the Parkrun. They have reported dealing with one stray dog and receiving a report from runners about a dog off lead during the warm up. Seven written warnings have been issued to first- time offenders about breaches of the existing dog control order. A repeat offender who previously paid a fixed penalty notice has been caught in breach of the order another two times. A prosecution is now pending.

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

13. The original Equality Impact Assessment has been revisited as part of this process and found no adverse impact based on the evidence.

OPTION APPRAISAL/RISK ASSESSMENT

14. Three new options are put forward as part of the review

Option 1 – Do Nothing This option would mean the Order covering only the south west quadrant would remain in force as first declared. This is not recommended as there is support for the changes that the Mayor has proposed.

Option 2 – Amend the Dog Control Orders to include only one of the proposals This option is not recommended. The public consultation identified a greater level of support for the proposal to keep dogs on a lead throughout the park on Saturdays when Parkrun is ongoing, however there is overwhelming support for both proposals so there are no merits in adopting only one of them.

Option 3 – Amend the Dog Control Order as proposed This is the recommended option as the consultation has identified there is overwhelming support for the proposals.

FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND WARD IMPLICATIONS

15. Financial Implications – To amend the Orders another public notice will need to be placed in a local newspaper at a cost in the region of £750. To amend the signs in the park to identify the new requirements will cost an estimated £2,000. The cost of this will be met from existing revenue budgets. There are no additional enforcement costs as a result of these changes.

16. Legal Implications – There are no new legal implications as a result of amending the Order.

17. Ward Implications – Albert Park is located in Park ward but users from all over Middlesbrough and beyond use this facility.

RECOMMENDATIONS

18. That the Executive considers the evidence presented in this report and determines to amend the Order to extend the existing dog exercise area along the park’s Western and Northern perimeters, with the exception of 8.30am and 10.30am on Saturdays, when dogs shall be required to be kept on a lead throughout the park. 4 REASONS

19. There is overwhelming support for both proposals, which would allow dogs a greater freedom to exercise and improve safety during the park run.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

The Fouling of Land by Dogs and Dogs on Leads (Middlesbrough Albert Park) Order 2009 The Dogs Exclusion (Middlesbrough Albert Park) Order 2009 DEFRA Guidance ‘Dog Control Orders’ Executive Report ‘Dog Control Order Albert Park’ dated 18th August 2009 Executive Report ‘Albert Park Dog Control Order Review’ dated 10th August 2010

AUTHOR: Paul Robertson TEL NO: 728212 ______Address: Website: http://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk

5 Appendix 1 – Consultation Questionnaire

Proposal to amend the Dog Control Order for Albert Park

In Oct. 2009 a Dog Control Order was introduced in Albert Park. The effect of the Orders was:

 To require people in charge of dogs to pick up fouling  To prohibit dogs from two fenced-off play areas (checked areas)  To require dogs to be kept on a lead in three of the four park ‘quadrants’. A 15 acre (62,000 square metres) exercise area was designated in the south- west quadrant of the park where dogs can run free.(black dot area)

A recent review of this Order has proposed an amendment to this Order and a 30 day consultation period is now underway. There are 2 proposed changes:  That the dog exercise area be extended to include the area marked in white dots  That dogs must be kept on leads throughout the entire park between 8.30am -10.30am every Saturday morning.

All other restrictions will remain. We would appreciate your comments on these proposals and these can be entered overleaf……..

6 Comments Do you agree

1. That the dog exercise area is extended to include the area marked in white dots

Yes / No

Please give reasons/comments

2. That dogs shall be kept on a lead between the hours of 8.30am – 10.30am on a Saturday morning? Yes No

Please give reasons/comments

If you do not wish to provide all the details below, your postcode would be useful to us in providing information about where people we are consulting about the proposed amendments are from.

Name______

Address ______

Postcode ______

* completed sheets should be returned to the visitors centre or can be returned directly to Karen Larkin, Middlesbrough Council, Community Protection Service, P.O. Box 502, Vancouver House, Gurney Street, Middlesbrough, TS1 9FW

7 Appendix 2 – Details of Comments Made in Response to the Consultation

Comments made with regard to proposal to extend dog exercise area Date Respondent Comment 1 4/10/10 TS5 (comments form) No, Dog walkers already have 25% of the park and there are a significant number who ignore current restrictions to the annoyance and hazard to other park users. 2 27/9/10 TS5 (comments form) Yes, The park is for everyone and it is a pleasure to see dogs exercising off lead, with a responsible owner. Everyone should be able to exercise 3 7/10/10 Mr Murphy TS1 No, The existing area is easily defined by the tarmac footpaths and there will be no (comments form) confusion about boundries 4 6/10/10 Cllr Elder Yes, there should be further space fpr the dogs to run freely off lead at the northern sector. 5 6/10/10 TS4 (comments form) No, I think it’s a disgrace that you (MBC) can change your minds when it suits you all because of a few dog owners. Let them run the Council then we might get something done. Why should I and my kids be jumped on by dogs. 6 6/10/10 TS4 (comments form) No, I come to the park to relax. Don’t need dogs running all over the place and not under control 7 6/10/10 Mr Cox TS10 (comments No, Many people still do not clean up after their dogs. It will not be possible to control form) an area where the boundaries run across an open field. It is difficult enough to find a clean area for your child to play safely. One quarter of the park should be ample. 8 7/10/10 Mr Foy TS5 (comments Yes, Gives more room for people to exercise their dogs without getting on top of each form) other, which has caused problems with crowding in the existing area. The whole process has been handled badly from the start and caused ill feeling within regular users of the park. Well done Mr Mayor!! 9 7/10/10 J. Parks TS12 (Comments No, I think the existing area is quite large enough. People are more important than form) dogs. 10 7/10/10 G. Parks TS12 No, I think there is enough space now to exercise dogs. Parks are for people & children (comments form) to enjoy, not to be dodging dogs 11 7/10/10 S Gale TS5 (comments Yes, I think the dog exercise area be included to the marked green area too, I think that form) the original idea for 1 dog exercise area was draconian considering that the park was given to the people of Middlesbrough. People have been strolling with their dogs for decades, and whoever originally thought about this idea should have perhaps thought about employing a warden to make sure people cleared up dog waste

8 12 6/10/10 B Jamieson TS4 Yes, To keep a dog healthy and happy it must have exercise but also must have (comments form) freedom to explore the smells in bushes etc. This is almost impossible while on a lead. 13 9/10/10 A Jackson TS8 No, How are you going to monitor and enforce without enclosing area (comments form) 14 14/10/10 Mr Andrews TS4 No, Dogs should be on a lead all over the park (comments form) 15 14/10/10 Mr & Mrs Behan TS5 Yes, I totally agree with the new arrangements and you can’t get any fairer than that. I (comments form) and my husband are dog walkers and agree that the park is for everyone not just dog walkers so a bit of respect by all users keeps everyone happy. 16 14/10/10 K. Mills TS5 (comments Yes, area must be extended, too many dogs in such a small area form) 17 20/10/10 Mrs May TS4 (Comments Yes, I agree. The blue area tended to get quite congested with dogs during certain Form) hours of the day and during the summer school hols parents & children used this area to have picnics. 18 21/10/10 R Smith TS4 (Comments Yes, To give dog walkers a fairer deal. Should include south path of park form) 19 21/10/10 L Smith TS4 (Comments Yes, original exercise area too restrictive/boring for both walkers and dogs. Extended form) area more interesting and will not impede on other users. Would prefer the south perimeter path also to be included to make a circular walk. 20 25/10/10 TS5 (Comments form) Yes, Because it gives the dogs and owners a bigger exercise area, which is needed! 21 25/10/10 TS1 (comments form) Yes, Dogs need exercise! The small area they hav now is not enough. This has been going on to long, I would think there is more things to worry about going on in the park, I hope you are spending has much time on them as you are on the dogs. 22 25/10/10 J. Campbell TS1 Yes, It has been clear from the start that the original given area was not enough, the (Comments form) minutes stated in the August 31st meeting the words in item 3 stated by the mayor ‘much of the northern area!’ the wording in the park notices states ‘part’ adding to all the confusion surrounding this issue along with the controversy, upset and stress it has caused dog walkers a lot of whom are elderly, live alone and rely on the comfort their dog gives them. 23 25/10/10 R. Mallett TS4 Yes, I agree to the laws of the above (Comments form) 24 27/10/10 M. Kelly TS5 (Comments Yes, dogs get bored walking in circles form) 25 18/10/10 On-line consultation Yes, Should of included south pathway of park

9 26 25/10/10 On-line consultation Yes, I think the addition of the north west quadrant of Albert Park as a “dogs off lead” area is really good. There is a lot of room for dogs and their owners to do their thing. This may even encourage owners to take thei dogs to Albert Park, rather than just walking their dogs on the street, so there could be less fouling on the streets of Middlesbrough. I think it’s important that there remains to be no dogs off leads in the wildlife area because dogs do have a tendency to disrupt other wildlife in the immediate area. 27 26/10/10 On-line consultation Yes, This should be brought in for other parks including Stewarts Park 28 28/10/10 TS1 (Comments form) Yes, Would prefer dogs to be also allowed into all unfenced areas in north west quadrant excepting bowling green and tennis courts 29 28/10/10 Mr M Dunn, TS5 Yes, Area does not extend far enough to give dog off lead access to toilet facilities at (comments form) pavillion 30 28/10/10 Mrs Peart TS12 No, I bring my grandchildren to Albert Park often and think that dogs should be on (Comments form) leads all through the park 31 28/10/10 M Loughran TS5 No Comment, It would be helpful to extend the existing area to include each path (Comments form) bordering the existing area leading to the fountain. This would allow dog walkers to circulate around the dog walking area without having to walk on the grass. 32 28/10/10 TS7 (Comments form) No, How many dogs are in the park at the same time there is plenty of space in the exercise area 33 15/11/10 Mr Charlton, TS3 Yes, We need easy access to the toilets so if we could have from dog area to the pavilion all so for and dog bags. 34 15/11/10 TS4 Yes, If you could include a path to the toilets where we are allowed with our dogs. That would help elderly, invalids who are in every day. We would be grateful.

Comments made with regard to proposal to require dogs to be on a lead during the Parkrun Date Respondent Comment 1 4/10/10 TS5 (comments form) Yes, Dogs should be on lead day sat/sun when children mainly use the park 2 27/9/10 TS5 (comments form) Yes, for the safety of all concerned, including the dogs, during the parkrun. It is only two hours out of a long week and is to benefit all. 3 7/10/10 Mr Murphy TS1 ? It may be advisable as not all dogs are well trained and will stay at heel when (comments form) requested. Also at other times young children can be scared by dogs not under control and running towards them. 4 6/10/10 Cllr Elder No, the keeping of dogs on a two metre lead (not stated but enacted!!!) for two

10 hours during a run where the dogs are then restricted to the off lead areas, but on lead, is inhumane and against the best interests of the dogs, which in turn is also frustrating for the dog walkers themselves and can lead to unwarranted instances of nervousness and transferred frustration in the dogs, leading to otherwise uncharacteristic, aggressive behaviour. The very thing that the order was supposed to suppress. Besides which on the day of the run there are no operative Park Rangers on duty until it is OVER. So, how is all this supposed to be ENFORCED??? 5 6/10/10 Mr Cox TS10 (comments Yes, This will allow parks events such as the run to go ahead without people being form) chased and harassed by unruly, out of control dogs, of which they are many not all dog owners are responsible. Many are, but not all. 6 7/10/10 Mr Foy TS5 (comments Yes, Only on the basis that you gain something so you give back. My form) understanding is that most of the runners had no problems with dogs in the exercise area. 7 7/10/10 G Parks TS12 (comments Yes, a lot of people jog on a Saturday morning and it would be nice to not have form) dogs running about after them. I play croquet at the park so notice the joggers etc. 8 7/10/10 S. Gale TS5 (comments No, Why should dogs be kept on a lead during those hours when ther is an form athletics stadium directly opposite for people if they fancy a jog. Also what about people who are disabled and people with children getting caught up amongst hundreds of runners when there is an alternative over the road. I think the huge field at Stewrts Park could be used for joggers on Saturdays, and leave the paths in Albert Park for what they were originally designed for. The Public. For people to walk in and enjoy the park 9 6/10/10 B Jamieson TS4 Yes, what joy to see whole families exercising in a town with many obese people. (comments form) I am a dog owner/walker 10 9/10/10 A. Jackson TS8 Yes, As part of the parkrun I feel one hour a week for this event is not a problem, I (comments form) have witnessed near accidents caused to runners by dogs who have been running free from owners. 11 14/10/10 Mr Andrews TS4 Children and dogs do not mix. (comments form) 12 14/10/10 Mr & Mrs Behan TS5 Yes, I agree with the new arrangements and dog owners have a responsibilitybto (comments form) keep dogs under control and clean up after them if everyone did this then there would be no trouble 13 14/10/10 K. Mills TS5 (comments No, Parks all around the country were opened for people to take there children or

11 form) dogs for walks in the park and use the swings and roundabouts, or feed the ducks or rest on park benches, not for 200 runners to use it as a race track. Claireville stadium is over the road tell them to use that. 14 20/10/10 Mrs May TS4 (comments Yes,I support this as I believe that 2 hours out of a week is not a lot to ask people form) to do. 15 21/10/10 L. Smith TS4 (Comments Yes, if it means the above won’t be ditched. i.e. It’s both amendments or nothing! form) But don’t agree with it – I just avoid going to park altogether on Saturdays and go elsewhere. 16 25/1/10 TS5 (Comments form) No comment 17 25/10/10 TS1 (Comments form) I’m not really bothered because I will not be going in at that time! There are far to many runners now so I will not go in. 18 25/10/10 J. Campbell TS1 Yes, If and only if the above is passed. Dog walking is exercise for both dog and (Comments form) walker and is low impact on the human body than running on an inappropriate surface which the park paths are. Some runners in the future will pay the price physically in the future with severe wear and tear on joints and muscles. Just ask the NHS! You do not have to run to get or be fit. I am all for Middlesbrough being a healthy town! 19 25/10/10 R. Mallett TS4 (Comments Yes, It’s a good way o control laws and is good for the park wardens. form) 20 27/10/10 M. Kelly TS5 (Comments Yes, give and take form) 21 25/10/10 On-line consultation Yes,Completely agree with the fact that all dogs must be kept on leads on Saturday between8.30-10.30am. Perhaps there could be another restriction that dogs must be kept on leads for a period in the afternoon because young children like to go to the park in the afternoon after lunch and sometimes dogs can be a hazard or slightly unnerving for young children and even adults. 22 26/10/10 On-line consultation Yes, There are a lot of dog owners who fail to control their dogs, so keeping them on a lead around the park is a very good idea, especially for large dogs who are exited and tend to jump on people for attention. 23 26/10/10 On-line consultation Yes, Good idea, I hope dog owners will stick to it. 24 28/10/10 TS1 (comments form) Yes, Cannot understand why 2 hrs as run is only for 1 hr. 25 28/10/10 Mr M Dunn TS5 No, Run should be re-directed to avoid original dog off lead area removing any (Comments form) confrontational issues with dogs/parkrun. 26 28/10/10 M Loughran TS5 No, The period 8.30 – 10.30 is one of the main times for dog walking for me as I

12 (Comments form) work Mon-Fri. I would agree that the restriction was reasonable if an alternative was offered such as allow walking off lead in area of Linthorpe cemetery not used for new or recent burials. 27 28/10/10 TS7 (Comments form) No, Why just a Saturday morning ?? 28 15/11/10 MrCharlton, TS3 No, I do not see a need for dogs to be on lead as we now have a dog exercise area, as dogs have not been a problem, but the run has been and still is causing a problem so get some of the runners under control. 29 15/11/10 TS4 No, Dogs are safer kept in the allotted area for them as it saves them being lashed out at and owners verbally spoke to, but does it have to be so long as the runners have gone by 9.50am? There may be an odd one left running but that can happen any day of the week.

General Comments Received Date Respondent Comment 29/09/10 Mr M Dunn Requests that a variation is considered, to make allowance for dogs off leads to be allowed to pass through the area between the tennis courts and the bowling greens which are fenced off, passing the Pavillion where toilets and dog waste bags are available to park users passing from the path near Park Road North in order to rejoin the original dog off lead area quadrant in the south west corner of Albert Park. To allow disabled and aged persons using Albert Park walking dogs to have greater choice of route without having to have the dog on the lead as I am sure you will realize not all have good health and many only operating to and from the disabled car park. 4/10/10 Cllr. Morby I am 100% against the dog control scheme in it’s entirety, the Park has been there frm day one for all to use in a sensible manner without offending other users, All of a sudden it appears that dog walkers are being targeted. Yes I agree there are some bad dog walkers,/ owners, as there are members of the public who do frequent the Park, In my opinion jogging / running, any sport against the clock or against an opponent should be done in purpose built arena, such as Clairville Stadium. And the dog walkers both good / bad [via enforcement] continue to be allowed to gather in the Park, Why otherwise do we have a sports complex if it is not for sportsmen / women then let the dog walkers use this, it’s no dafter idea than banning them from what they have done for donkeys years.

13 6/10/10 Cllr Elder This order is too discriminatory and simplistic in seeking merely to control one element within the Park. The Park has many problem areas that require attention , if the idea was to make "cleaner , safer environments. What about broken glass bottles from the drinkers that can cause nasty cuts to the feet of both dogs and runners? There should not be any drinking in the Park at all. Yet my snap shot clearly showed three doing so at 8;30am on the morning of the run. These are all RISK assessment issues that are not being tackled presently obviously. Not to mention the other car parking matters and the health issue of human faeces and who clears that up!!! Moreover, as this order was obviously either a knee jerk reaction to the dogfight in the Town centre, where dogs are nevertheless allowed to be on a five metre lead; or instigated by the runners whose numbers have increased 1000 fold since inception and some of whom I am reliably informed having already forced dogwalkers ,by the sheer volume of numbers, off the path into the wet and slippery leaf -covered grassy areas, then knocked over disabled walkers and their dogs, which were also kicked and "were f'd and blinded at "( this being reported to the Park Officers at the time when the disabled person was merely told to " grow up !") So, the order is unfairly discrimantory again of dogwalkers in the Park. The argument that a two metre lead is imposed because they have a wider area to roam is thus a nonsense. They cannot roam at all during this period. What about dogs that run in the race itself and stray dogs without owners who according to the enforcement section "Cannot be apprehended." How is the order to affect them? The Park is for the benefit of ALL THE CITIZENS of MIDDLESBROUGH; yet it seems that the rights of "OUTSIDERS" have precedence ( people from Morpeth, Lincolnshire, Hartlepool and Darlington to name but a few) Again the argument that these people are contributing to the economy of Middlesbrough would seem to be fallacious. They do not pay to be in the Park and most of the non - locals disappear straight after the run. I trust that all these comments will be incorporated into the consultation document that will no doubt come back before Council for updating. let us hope it is an all INCLUSIVE update then and not merely a : "yes, no", in numbers as stated therefore x results mean the order is carried ad infinitum. It will be interesting to see how many NON - DOGWALKERS actually get to decide the fates of the dogs!!! Since this dog order is open to all regardless of doggy/ non - doggy status. Finally, though again obviously extraneous to purposes ,there are no RISK assessment proposals here and who pays insurance - wise if there is a major accident? perhaps considertion could be given to these matters that have been aired before without public answers. 25/10/10 Bowker TS1 Once upon a time we were able to walk our dogs in the park. Along come the runners and the Council, (Comments now we are Once upon a time we were able to walk our dogs in the park. Along come the runners and

14 form) the Council, now we are told what to do. Someone some where does not like dogs, but likes runners. The parkrun gets more and more runners every week. The park is turning into a sports arena. Are all runners from Middlesbrough? No they are not! I am a council tax payer and 72 years of age. I do not claim benefits and have lived in Middlesbrough all my life. Now I am told what to do. If I knew then what I know now I don’t think I would of wasted time voting! I am so angry 17/11/10 Mr Charlton, Letter received suggesting that the park run is moved to Clairville Stadium. TS3

15 Appendix 3 – Dog Owners Code of Practice for Albert Park

Have your dog micro-chipped and registered with Middlesbrough Council. Always ensure it is wearing a collar and identity tag when out in a public place.

Train your dog to sit, stay and to come to call so that it is under control at all times.

Do not allow your dog to run up to other park users uninvited, and train it not to jump up at people.

Ensure that you comply with the Dog Control Order when in the park – comply with the rules on leads, fouling and exclusion areas.

Let your dog relieve itself in your garden before you take it for a walk and in case it has an accident take a poop-scoop with you.

Do not take a banned breed (as prescribed in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991) into the park

Train your dog not to bark or chase other wildlife in the park, e.g. ducks, geese or squirrels as this can cause distress to both the animals and other park users

Have your dog wormed and treated for fleas and ticks regularly.

Consider neutering if you do not intend to breed from your dog. It can have a number of health and behavioural benefits.

16