Report of the Assistant Director Neighbourhoods and Customer Services to the meeting of Regulatory and Appeals Committee (the Committee) to be held on the 15th October 2020 Subject: AL A report relating to the proposed extension variation of the six existing Dog Control Public Spaces Protection Orders for the Bradford District or the making of a district wide order under the powers arising from the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act). Summary statement: th On 18 July 2019 the Committee resolved as follows:- (1) That the Assistant Director, Neighbourhoods and Customer Services be authorised to undertake the statutory consultation exercise in order to establish the evidence required to extend the following orders: The 2016 Drinking City Centre Order; (i) The 2002/03 City Centre Designated Public Places Order; (ii) The Street Drinking Orders for areas outside the City Centre; (iii) and The existing Dog Control Orders (iv) That further reports in relation to Drinking Orders be submitted to the (2) Committee in September 2019 and Dog Control Orders during 2020. This report provides a summary of the responses to the statutory consultation on the proposed extension or variation of the Councils existing six Public Spaces (Dog Control ) Protection Orders and a possible composite order for whole of the Bradford District and the submission of recommendations arising from the responses to the consultation. Steve Hartley Portfolio: Neighbourhoods and Community Strategic Director Safety Place Report Contact: Amjad Ishaq Overview & Scrutiny Area: Corporate Environmental Services & Enforcement Manager Phone: Tel: 01274 433682 Mob: 07582 100549 Email: [email protected] City Solicitor-Parveen Akhtar 1.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT This report relates to the extension (and or variation ) of the existing Dog Control Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) for the Metropolitan District of Bradford or a proposed district wide order. It also provides a summary of the responses to the statutory consultation. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The Act makes provision for :- The creation of PSPO’s under section 59 of the Act; On creation of a PSPO the Act provides for the suspension of the Councils existing byelaws where prohibitions in the byelaws are covered by prohibitions in a PSPO; The Councils six existing Dog Control orders (DCO’s) becoming PSPO’s on 20th October 2017. 2.2 Unless the six existing Dog Control PSPO’s mentioned above are extended they will end by operation of law on 20th October 2020. 2.3 PSPO’s can also be extended varied or discharged under section 60 and 61 of the Act respectively ( see legal appraisal). 2.4 The table below sets out information relating to dog control over the period 2015- 2019. It lists the complaints/incidents reported to the Council. These clearly demonstrate the need for restrictions and prohibitions to be in place in addition to the evidence obtained though the consultation responses. 2 Year Dog Leads – Report of Dogs on Dangerous Fouling Straying Dogs Lead/Exclusion Dogs Dogs killed on roads 2015 964 438 41 6 408 2016 832 398 51 4 356 2017 799 337 25 5 353 2018 740 312 23 5 259 2019 783 244 35 3 294 2.5 Consultation methodology 2.5.1 The consultation was carried out in accordance with legal requirements as described in section 72 of the Act’. ( see legal appraisal ) 2.5.2 Before the formal consultation took place dialogue was encouraged from various interest groups friend groups etc. The information received back was used to shape the formal consultation. Some comments are included in the table below. 2.5.3 In accordance with legal requirements emails were also sent to all the Parish and Town Councils within the Bradford district, West Yorkshire Police Service, West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner. 2.5.4 Also possible representative bodies, such as local Friends of Groups, senior and junior football leagues and the two cricket leagues, the Kennel Club, Bradford Council of Mosques and other organisations were also contacted and encouraged to participate in the consultation. 2.5.5 Information about the consultation and links to the consultation documents, including the online survey, were posted on the Council’s website. https://bradford.moderngov.co.uk/mgConsultationDisplay.aspx?ID=247 2.5.6 The Council issued press releases (appendix 10.12 ) and used social media to successfully promote the consultation. 2.6 Consultation summary findings 2.7 The online survey has generated over 1900 responses. This is a very high response rate and submissions have been received from each one of the 30 wards within the Bradford District. The questions and the summary results of the survey can found in Appendix A. 2.7.1 As part of the consultation respondents were asked to comment on where they felt dogs should be on a lead, where dogs should be excluded from and any other comments. Most of the 1900 respondents submitted suggestions and comments. 3 These can be found in the appendix B, C and D respectively. These are very illuminating comments and reflect the broad feelings of respondents on this issue namely that dog control should continue and should be more extensively enforced. 2.7.2 96% of respondents said a person in charge of a dog must put the dog on a lead when requested to do so by an authorised officer. 2.7.3 90% of respondents said a person in charge of a dog on the land below must keep the dog on a lead in the following areas? (Cemeteries and churchyards including green burial areas). 2.7.4 61% of respondents said a person in charge of a dog on the land below must keep the dog on a lead on footpaths around lakes and ponds. 2.7.5 86% of respondents said a person in charge of a dog on the land below must keep the dog on a lead around sports grounds, fields, parks and pitches but only when in use for officiated sporting matches) 2.7.6 86% of respondents said a person in charge of a dog must not take it into or keep it within a fenced/enclosed children’s play area? 2.7.7 98% of respondents said a person in charge of a dog must forthwith remove the faeces from any public open space across Bradford district? 2.7.8 96% of respondents said that a person in charge of a dog must have and produce on request the appropriate means to pick up dog faeces deposited by that dog? 2.7.9 50% of respondents said they regularly walked a dog. 2.7.10 1846 respondents submitted a postcode as part of the survey reply. All districts were well represented as below: Ward Number of Responses Baildon 132 Bingley 120 Bingley Rural 109 Bolton and Undercliffe 57 Bowling and Barkerend 23 Bradford Moor 13 City 21 Clayton and Fairweather Green 27 Craven 101 Eccleshill 30 Great Horton 20 Heaton 40 Idle and Thackley 48 Ilkley 174 Keighley Central 27 Keighley East 48 Keighley West 32 Little Horton 33 Manningham 17 4 Queensbury 103 Royds 65 Shipley 130 Thornton and Allerton 67 Toller 15 Tong 30 Wharfedale 49 Wibsey 35 Windhill and Wrose 45 Worth Valley 94 2.7.11 As part of the pre-consultation and formal consultation process the following comments have been received. Name and Date consultation sent Method of Date In Comments address of consultatio Returned Favour made Consultee n i.e. Email, Yes or Letter, face No to face Local Elected Local elected members have been Emails from Various Broadly See below members both involved and consulted on the Ward - Yes development and progress of this Officers request for a PSPO in the area Hazel Pearson I would like to strongly recommend leads for dogs in all parts of Queensbury cemetery. I have picked dog fouling off my husbands’ grave, have been present where dogs are allowed to run over the graves and urinate on them, when owners present. Children often take dogs in there and throw balls for them, shouting and sometimes swearing. I feel this space is not for recreational use, it is not an old unused burial ground, many children are buried here and it should be a quiet space for contemplation I feel. Lynda Cromie I am a ward councillor for Queensbury, and a member of ‘friends of Queensbury cemetery’; Over the last few years we have enacted a dogs on leads policy for the cemetery, however this is currently not working, people are letting dogs run free and defecate without removal of the faeces. After speaking to local residents and the community, concerns have been raised about the abundance of dog foul and the lack of peace with dogs running around, in such an emotionally sensitive area. In particular, family members with deceased in the cemetery, whom bring dogs when visiting graves, have stated that they would not mind the cemetery to be a dog exclusion zone, as this would make the cemetery a much nicer place to visit. We believe it would be in the best interest of the cemetery and community, to enact a dog exclusion zone for this area. Debbie Davies Regarding the consultation I’m not sure there is any need to alter any of these orders in Baildon ward but my question is more about enforcement of these rules – how effective is it? How many people have received fines and when and where? Not in my ward but there are often loose dogs in Roberts Park. Sue Knox Are we saying that dogs are allowed off the lead in parks apart from play areas/bowling greens.