Environment Subject: New Dog Rules Thes

Home , Landguard Common, Rushmere Common

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 23 August 2017 10:28 To: Environment Subject: New dog rules

These rules seem to be ok. How will they be enforced? By whom will they be enforced?

Are dogs allowed to foul public footpaths across fields or are owners supposed to pick up ?

Regards Kirton

From: ] Sent: 18 August 2017 19:02 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads

Hi, Too much emphasis on punitive measures rather than proactive encouragement does not make for good practice. Irresponsible persons are likely to be the owners of un-chipped dogs, allowing foiling and will not have the income to pay the fine! Our MP wisely seeks caution. I'm left wondering about consistency of enforcement, interpretation and understanding of Woolley legislation by owners and those empowered to enforce. Notices in set places like the beaches etc are fine, but areas near roads seems unworkable defining what constitutes a reasonable definition of 'a road' will no doubt rack up legal costs and tie administration down. Focussed and targeted zones seem proportionate and reasonable to manage. Regards Sent from my iPad

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 18 August 2017 19:19 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads proposals

Dear Sir,

Many of these proposals are commonsense and are already observed by responsible dog walkers. However, there are serious problems with one item in the schedule: "Sports grounds, fields, greens and pitches (when in use as such)"

It is certainly possible to keep dogs off football/cricket pitches and on a lead (though what about golf courses??) - but the rest of this proposal is simply wrong-headed. Sports grounds, fields and greens are frequently the only places where people can allow their dogs to have energetic exercise, especially in built-up areas, and it is both impractical and unwise to stop people letting dogs off leads. Unwise because some breeds need to run freely for some part of their walk in order to exercise properly and it is perfectly safe to do this responsibly in the vast majority of sports grounds, fields and greens. There should, however, be consideration for other users of that space and owners should be advised to put their dogs on a lead if young children are around.

It may well be that there are particular village greens or other areas where it would be dangerous or otherwise unwise to let dogs off leads. Why not frame this order in a way that allows parish councils to apply the proposed regulation to a specific location, subject to clear and adequate signing of the restriction? If there is no specific signing provided, then I can see very considerable enforcement problems - and I think, for that reason, the general inclusion of sports grounds, fields and greens is completely unworkable and that element should be dropped.

Kind regards Felixstowe IP11 7 JT

Sent from my iPad

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 18 August 2017 20:01 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Order

Dear Sir

I write to object to any order that restricts dogs to be walked off lead, as per your consultation. Beaches used during the summer Months are an exception.

Responsible dog owners need to decide themselves.

Don't waste money paying for wardens to inspect.

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 18 August 2017 21:03 To: Environment Subject: Draconian rules for dogs

Dear Person This rule you are putting forward for keeping dogs on leads is stupid, you are an insult to your profession if you feel the need for this law! My dog has never, I repeat that, never affected anybody in an offensive way, I have never met anybody that even dislikes her, she is warm loving and affectionate, actually I've not met a single dog in my neighbourhood that is offensive or unhealthy, you propose punishing them for that? Now I have met a few children who are actually thugs, some have taken great delight in smashing up the bus shelter behind my home, we had a gang of them trying to smash windows with snow balls one year, they leave rubbish in all the parks, write graffiti on walls, the list goes on, but will you spend any time doing something about them? How about doing your job instead of making up stupid rules

Worlingham Beccles

Sent from my iPad

From:

Sent: 18 August 2017 22:17 To: Environment Subject: Exclusion of dogs.

Dear Sirs

I have heard of your plans to ban dogs from several areas, and I feel I must protest. Dogs need areas where they can run and play in safety away from roads. If you must ban dogs from certain areas then you must provide an alternative place for them. I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours faithfully

Click here to report this email as spam.

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 18 August 2017 22:35 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders.

Dear Sir/ Madam, I would like to raise my objection to imposing Public Space Protection Orders in Suffolk.

I object in principle to the imposition of such orders and feel they would be a restriction of my entitlement as a local person to enjoy the environment in which I am resident. I have been park of the Hollesley/ Shingle street community for nearly five decades and the increasing degree of restriction is far in excess of that which is reasonable and tolerable.

May I suggest that if the house building were restricted there is every possibility that there would be less people trying to live within the limited space? Thereby offering a solution issues of the number of dogs in the community.

If my objection would only be acceptable on an individual order basis please advise so I can resubmit my objection.

Really I am totally non-plussed that any consideration is being given to such Orders in this small rural community. Kind regards Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 18 August 2017 22:44 To: Environment Subject: Dog controls

I am strongly against any increase in the proposed changes to the legislation by the relevant councils. Please stop listening to the " johns come lately's " and leave thins as they are.

From:

Sent: 18 August 2017 23:24 To: Environment Subject: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS

Dear Sirs

I've just read through the proposed Public Space Protection Orders in relation to dogs, and I'm utterly horrified. These measures are nothing short of draconian, and completely unnecessary.

In each case, you're proposing to make it a criminal offence if an owner does not keep their dog on a lead. This is an absolute disgrace! Why is the Council intent on persecuting dogs and their owners?

I am certain that the Council must have other matters it could be dealing with, rather than trying to criminalise dog owners for merely allowing their dog to enjoy some offlead exercise.

Yours sincerely

Click here to report this email as spam.

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 02:33 To: Environment Subject: Consultation dogs

Good morning, I am horrified at the reporting of this plan, which appears to be an attempt to impose regulations and draconian control by the back door. As a resident and dog owner I cannot see why you would need to do this. There is ample legislation in place and Suffolk Constabulary are able to pursue prosecutions in the case of dangerous dogs or those causing injury. In these times of fiscal restrictions how can the Council justify the cost of this? How do you expect to implement this policy and why would dog lovers travel to Suffolk to be treated like second class citizens, in this period of financial depression is this really appropriate? I am very disappointed that the Council believes this to be a worthwhile investment of this time and resources.

Regards

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 06:23 To: Environment Subject: Dog Controls

In my opinion the proposed changes are completely sensible. I live in a seaside town and dogs have become a nuisance rather than a pleasure. Thank you Suffolk Coastal

Sent from my iPhone

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 07:45 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads

I feel that dogs should be on leads when outside their owner's house and garden. They certainly should not be allowed to be a nuisance to young children playing, to wildlife in nature reserves nor people on beaches. I feel Suffolk council is taking the right approach.

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 07:46 To: Environment Subject: Restrictions on Dogs

Dear Sir or Madam I have to comment with great feeling that the proposed restrictions by yourselves on having dogs on leads can only indicate that someone in the council has too little work to do to come up with mostly such a ridiculous suggestion. Where will this end? Dogs will soon not be able to walk/run anywhere, and I'll wait for the Forestry commission to ban dogs from the local woods and forests. Whilst I myself am appalled as a dog owner by others who do not clear up after their dogs, the vast majority do. I also recognise that there are people out there who have not trained their dogs, and they "run riot" around other dogs and people. They can cause distress and some injury, so perhaps you would be better placed seeking some form of redress over these issues rather than the suggestions raised. From walking my own dog on its lead where it is clearly indicated and for both her sake and others, I note that some people still leave their dogs running free. How is this going to be policed? And who is expected to pay for this in the current regime of cutting essential services that seem to be ongoing over the past few years. As a dog owner who's dog regularly loves to run, is friendly but obedient, I am concerned that I and many others as myself are penalised for the sake of the thoughtlessness of a few, and then being asked to pay for this! I do not consider that it is good use of my payment towards Suffolk Coastal Council to take my money to pay for this "service" when other cutbacks are being made. I have no problem that dogs are restricted from children's play areas full stop. These are areas for children, not dogs ! Last year I observed a father allow his son to defecate on the beach at Aldeburgh and then covered this with shingle. This was a toddler however this is not the first time I've seen this happen. Half an hour later a man with his dog picked up his dogs mess on the same stretch of beach. I've even seen the same on the sandy beach at Lowestoft with everyone turning a blind eye to this behaviour. When I offered a poop scoop bag to the father at Aldeburgh I was told that the next tide would wash it away. May I therefore suggest that the individual/s who thought up this idea, apply themselves to other more constructive ways of earning their salaries from the new council offices. One may be of how to ease the traffic that regularly builds up outside my door even more since the new council offices were built and pouring carbon monoxide fumes through my windows every day, that is every bit as dangerous as the germs from dog mess. Along with the erratic parking that endangers walkers lives on bends and corners. Yours Sincerely Sent from my iPad

From:

Sent: 19 August 2017 08:20 To: Environment Subject: Consultation - New Public Space Protection Orders - Dogs

We are in support of the proposals regarding dogs in Public spaces. In particular the orders relating to Felixstowe and Aldeburgh Beaches and Landguard Point are very welcomed. We walk these areas frequently and can cite many examples of irresponsible and uncaring dog owners who allow their dogs to roam free often out of sight of the owner causing nuisance to others, fouling of beaches, promenades and open space. This problem is compounded by owners of more than one dog or so called “professional” dog walkers who can often have four or five dogs roaming free.

Our beautiful Suffolk coastal landmarks should be cherished and nurtured for the benefit of locals and visitors alike and these proposals go some way to ensuring that people can enjoy the facilities without fear of being accosted by uncontrolled dogs or having to avoid dog mess as they walk on the beaches and promenades or green spaces.

Regards

Felixstowe

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 09:08 To: Environment Subject: PSPO consultation

Dogs must be allowed to have a good run, otherwise there are likely to be behaviour problems. Your council has never been good at providing fenced in dog run areas. This must be your priority. If you are able to set up good fenced in dog walking areas in Felixstowe, and other places, where dogs are allowed to run free, then, you could consider imposing more restrictions on where dogs are allowed off lead. However, it is absolutely essential to provide the dog run areas first, and this needs to be done, even if the additional PSPO is not imposed.

Marina Gardens Dog Fostered for Blue Cross and Greyhound Homer. 19th August

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 09:13 To: Environment Subject: Proposed ruling for dog walking spaces

As a dog walker with two very lively spaniels that need off lead space to maintain their needs, I understand that there are people in the world who are not so keen on dogs. I also understand that the dog population has grown and not all dogs and their owners are that well trained. I feel there are many laws in place already which are not given attention to, perhaps some thought could be given to enforcing existing laws, perhaps people would be more inclined to abide by the existing laws if they were enforced. Perhaps people are more likely to abide by the laws if they are likely to be held accountable.

I agree there has to be spaces where there are no dogs because of behavioural issues around dog owners and dogs. Perhaps there could be owner/dog awareness campaigns, that could cover a multitude of issues. As long as the needs of dogs are not ignored, as they play a big part in family life and have positive benefits. Giving dog owners natural spaces well signed and not being too draconian will make for a more pleasant world for all. If some dogs cannot get the required exercise they need, in natural surroundings it makes for unwanted behavioural issues from owners and their dogs. I believe in balance and that we are are all animals with needs to be fulfilled.

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 09:15 To: Environment Subject: Public protection orders regarding dogs.

Good morning.

Your new proposals regarding dogs on leads and restrictions banning dogs display both common sense in some cases but, in other cases a sense of utterly unnecessary hysteria.

With regard to dog fouling, dogs being required to be on leads where traffic or children's playgrounds are involved are sensible requirements. It is also sensible to restrict dogs on sections of beaches that are used in high season by the public.

However, as a Felixstowe girl of many years, I have to object to the ruling on the whole of Landguard. We regularly walk in this area and, of course do not allow our dog to roam the areas where birds nest. The area of Landguard that abuts the viewpoint road has been used for much enjoyment by dogs, children and adults alike. I have never experienced difficulties there - people who walk at Landguard are responsible and thoughtful and it is not necessary to impose such far-fetched restrictions. It will merely have the effect of driving people away from Felixstowe to other areas and prevent many people's innocent enjoyment with well behaved dogs. It is nonsense to punish responsible dog owners in this way.

It is far more important to concentrate on dog fouling and make expectations on this much clearer to the public.

I think you should be asking yourselves exactly what you wish to achieve by some of these measures and in whose best interest they are.

Yours sincerely.

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 09:37 To: Environment Subject: Dog guidance

Dear Suffolk coastal, These ideas are not in line with supporting the population in the area. The allowance to excercise dogs along the beach, prom & Languard Fort enables activity & socialisation for People who may otherwise be isolated & at risk of weight gain. I do however agree with on the spot fines for dog fouling & restriction from child play areas-- these are already laws ( aren't they?). There would also be a notable loss of revenue for the cafes etc in the area. People will not travel to the coast only for coffee!!! You cannot be serious

Sent from my iPhone

From:

Sent: 19 August 2017 11:16 To: Environment Subject: Proposed PSPO at Bawdsey/Shingle St

Preventing dogs from being allowed to run on the beaches at Bawdsey will have a highly detrimental effect on the lives of local dog owners. Beaches are a wonderful place for dogs and their owners to get high quality exercise. We are always being told we should get lots of exercise at all stages in life, and beaches like this are a great place to do so.

Yes, of course people should clean up after their dogs (although if they don't, at least the sea will clean much of this beach daily).

I understand why dogs are restricted on beaches by town centres that are heavily used by children, especially if dogs are allowed on the neighbouring area of beach, such as at Southwold (we love the beach north of the pier). But in the case of Shingle St/Bawdsey, this is one of those wild beaches that should be allowed to be a dog exercise area. If you prevent people from running their dogs here, they'll do it elsewhere - will you then follow them and stop them in that new place too?

The detriment to dog owners is far greater than the supposed detrimental effect on dog haters.

Kind regards,

Click here to report this email as spam.

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 12:31 To: Environment Subject: Dogs

If people like yourselves were really concerned with the environment, do something to stop the mess, destruction and pollution caused by the humans. Responsible dog owners clean up after the dogs the ones who don't are the same ones who litter and allow the kids to litter. Get a grip and stop persecution of dog owners. How much of this is Muslim driven might be interesting too

Get Outlook for Android

Click here to report this email as spam.

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 13:49 To: Environment Subject: Dog restrictions.

To whom it may concern.

I would like to register my complaint and objecyion regarding the proposed dog restrictions.

Unlike your seasonal visitors I visit all year with my dog where currently permitted. I support local businesses and enjoy their hospitality in return.

I have paid taxes all my life and would like my needs as a dog owner to be met too.

Unlike your seasonal visitors I clear up after my dog, as do most dog owners and do not leave the detritus of domestic pleasure for others to dispose.

We pride ourselves as a nation of dog lovers but your proposals envisage an environment where dogs are excluded and denied that which enables them to thrive.

What would be much more useful would be to introduce meaningful community based penalties for the owners of uncontrolled dogs in public places and those that allow their dogs to foul in public places without cleaning up after them. e.g Litter picking and clearing of dog fouling in parks prior to grass cutting etc.

Those that abuse our lovely Suffolk and are not dog owners should be rewarded with the same penalties.

My late father frequently expounded 'common sense is not that common'. From your proposals it seems he was right.

Yours sincerely

Click here to report this email as spam.

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 15:05 To: Environment Subject: Your new anti Dog proposition.

For once I have to agree with Ms Coffey. There are enough anti Dog rules in Suffolk at the moment. Because of the few, you are proposing to penalise the many responsible Dog owners. You say nothing about the many Horses that are ridden on our roads and paths leaving great piles of crap, and never cleared up. You say nothing about the amount of plastic and rubbish (left by people) on our Beaches and Heaths/Woodland. You say nothing about Farmers spilling manure and mud over our roads and byways. What is your problem with Dogs? Isn't there more important things to concern us like Pot holes, fly tipping, pollution, Sizewell emergency procedure etc etc. Most Dogs are harmless lovable animals, and so are their owners, its just the bad ones that get the headlines. We have to put up with a minority of irresponsible people in most walks of life, including MPs and Councillors, but we don't ban them all because of the few.

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 15:55 To: Environment Subject: Dog Restrictions

I am not a dog owner, but I have been in the past and I believe dogs are valuable companion pets for young and old alike. I am a council tax payer in Suffolk Coastal

I have read the proposed orders and they seem draconian and I do not see any evidence put forward of the need for these restrictions. What is the reasoning behind the exclusion of dogs from so much public space? You do not show any evidence, and I believe the need for restrictions is unproven.

I am entirely against the proposals

Warm regards

Levington

Click here to report this email as spam.

From:

Sent: 19 August 2017 16:47 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders (Dogs on Leads)

Dear Suffolk Coastal District Council

In response to your proposal regarding increasing restrictions to owners who walk their Dogs, I would like to pass comments.

As a responsible dog owner we regularly visit Felixtowe and other coastal towns, to walk our dogs and visit local shop. Any increase in current restrictions for access with dogs will deter us from supporting the local economy (restaurants and cafe) as a day out. I agree that there should be areas for the public to access the coast, who do not own dogs. Equally there should also be retained access to other areas of the coast for dog owners. The current control measures are suitable and do not require increased restrictions.

Kind regards

Click here to report this email as spam.

From:

Sent: 19 August 2017 18:19 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on Leads

Dear Madam/Sir

I have a dog and I ensure that I go for training with my dog so that I am able to recall my dog to prevent her annoying anybody and I also both pick up her poos religiously - there are a huge amount of dog walkers who do the same and are very cognizant of the fact that those without dogs have rights too – I think I would feel that your suggestions to curtail off lead walking would carry much more weight if a scientific survey was carried out which showed overwhelmingly that the majority of the residents were anti dogs being off leads.

There seems to be no coherent logic in your proposals and you would be curtailing the joy of so very many permanent residents – I certainly agree that is not appropriate that dogs are let loose to foul in childrens play areas but I would urge the council to take a more objective look at the issue before introducing a policy that may end up where there is nowhere where dog walkers can go by the sea.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Yours sincerely

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Click here to report this email as spam.

From:

Sent: 19 August 2017 18:44 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on Beaches

I am not entirely sure where this idea has come from, but I am disappointed that you are even considering this proposal.

We live in a rural County, off course there will be dogs. Dogs are superb companions either within a family or those living on their own.

To restrict the places where dogs can go means you are restricting the places people can go. You are reducing the well -being of people and pets (through exercises) and lack of enjoyment for all as well (picnics, trips put on public areas).

I am not entirely convinced the use of Council Tax for this consultation is the best use of Public funds and am.sure it could be better spent elsewhere

To day I am against this proposal us an understatement

Regards

Click here to report this email as spam.

From: Sent: 19 August 2017 18:29 To: Environment Subject: Dog exclusion

This proposal will prevent responsible dog owners being able to exercise themselves and their pets in areas where dog walkers are the primary users. This proposal is an appalling use of the Council's time and money when there are so many better and more important situations that the Council need to address. There is no public heath or public enjoyment gain from this proposal. It is an infringement of the rights of Council Tax payers to use their local environment. There are so many dog owners who have clear rights to enjoy their coast and countryside. A disgraceful suggestion that must be opposed at every opportunity.

Sent from my mobile

From:

Sent: 19 August 2017 19:20 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Dog control measure

Excellent idea.please impose asap.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Click here to report this email as spam.

From:

Sent: 19 August 2017 21:48 To: Environment Subject: Dog walking (Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wanted to comment on the plans to fine dog owners, for not having their dogs on leads at restricted times, at Shingle St and Felixstowe.

I cannot see the justification for these proposed restrictions. If it is being done for safety reasons, then ALL public places under the councils control should have the same restrictions. The "risks", as you see them, are equal in all places that dogs are present.

A Public Space Protection Order has to meet 2 criteria.

The first is that an activity must have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. Dog walking at Shingle St and Languard has not been proven, by yourselves, to be of any greater an impact than that of any other public space.

The second is that the activity must be of a persistent or unreasonable nature. Again, how are the above mentioned locations any different to any other public place where dogs are walked?

I can only think, that yours is a misuse of the Public space protection order. I cannot imagine that dog walking, or the ownership of a dog, was ever considered when this order was devised. It was devised as a control of antisocial behaviour, illegal raves, car meets.. that kind of activity, amongst others. Not dog walking surely?

I would be more convinced of your plans, if you actually clearly demonstrated the need for these "draconian" measures, with salient examples

Regards

Click here to report this email as spam.

From:

Sent: 19 August 2017 21:15 To: Environment Subject: Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 Public Space Protection Orders – Dog Controls in the Suffolk Coastal District

Dear Sirs,

I totally agree with all the proposed new orders, especially those relating to Landguard and Felixstowe in general.

However, who is going to enforce them? I never see police or enforcement officers on the sea front. I usually use them early in the morning.

felixstowe

From:

Sent: 19 August 2017 22:33 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Order - Dogs

Hello

I would like to respond to your proposals for Public Space Protection Orders in relation to dogs. I am a dog owner and believe that your proposals are draconian. The vast majority of dog owners are responsible and know when it is appropriate to allow their dogs off the lead. It is a minority or owners who are irresponsible. To insist on dogs being on the lead in most public spaces on the grounds of Heath and Safety will make it very difficult for people to be able to effectively exercise their dogs. I for one use a local cemetery and churchyard to walk my dogs and throw their ball. The same applies on beaches.

Why pick on dogs when the vast majority of anti social behaviour and fouling is caused by humans. Does Suffolk Coastal wish to be known as the least dog friendly Council in England?

I also own a bed and breakfast which welcomes dogs and their owners from all over the country. If this legislation goes ahead it may well make people think twice about coming to stay in Suffolk Coastal if they are unable to let their dogs run free. This would therefore affect my business

There are already fairly draconian laws in place at Southwold. Aldeburgh and Felixstowe beaches. The majority are being penalised because of the behaviour of the few.

I would urge the council to reconsider these proposals and put them in the dog waste bin where they belong.

Yours sincerely

Yoxford

From: Sent: 20 August 2017 01:08 To: Environment Subject: Dogs

Hi I have just read your article on banning dogs on Felixstowe beach I fully support this as the dogs who are not on a lead are free to run up to strangers! Not everyone likes dogs for example my four and a half year old granddaughter had a little Jack Russel run up to her it wanted to play! Sadly all the barking and jumping up caused her to scream and Jump on to me! The dog owner said he was sorry, but it's to late she is now petrified of dogs and asks will there be any dogs when we go out! She is having night terrors and wetting her bed, she has NEVER done this prior to this event.

The dogs who poo on the beach is also a big concern and I don't mean the minority who don't pick the poo up! It's the owner who try to pitch up a lose poo that is impossible to completely clean up. This could be serious if a mother lays her small baby on the ground while getting her pushchair and sandwiches to the waters edge! Yes I've been there, thinking the area was clean only to smell poo on my baby's nappy from stones covered in half removed poo! It's impossible for these dog owners to completely remove all the poo while using a bag!

Kind regards

Sent from my iPhone

From:

Sent: 20 August 2017 08:55 To: Environment Subject: proposed new Public Space Protection Orders

Dear Sir,

I would like to express my complete support for excellent proposals re: new Public Space Protection Orders to do with dogs.

I hope you would also provide notices to inform the public as we have so many visitors to our area.

Yours sincerely

From:

Sent: 20 August 2017 11:18 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on lead

Who is going to enforce this regulation and will Police “Sniffer Dogs” be exempt? Nothing brings the law into greater disrepute than lack of enforcement.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From:

Sent: 20 August 2017 11:28 To: Environment Subject: Dog controls

Re. Public Space Protection Orders – Dog Controls Consultation

From personal experience, dog controls as those proposed should definitely be enforced at Landguard Nature Reserve.

Regards

From:

Sent: 20 August 2017 12:00 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads

An excellent proposal to make life safer and less stressful for people who do not like dogs and do not welcome them bounding up to you leaving you unsure if the dog is aggressive or playful. I had a brand new suit on and a labrador ran and jumped up covering my trousers in mud only for the owner a hundred yards away to shout "he''s alright mate". I have been bitten whilstriding my bike on road past a loose dog. Dog owners seem to believer it's alright to allow their dogs to poo if the grass is long off leads. I was having a picnic on Felixstowe beach when a dog came up behind us and wee'do on our food. Great potential news. Regards.

From: Sent: 20 August 2017 12:01 To: Environment Subject: Public space protection order

I am a (responsible) dog owner and I fully support the restrictions around play areas, sports pitches, also beaches during the summer months: however, I wouldn't like to see restrictions on beaches all year round. We have recently moved to Martlesham Heath from South Yorkshire, where I was a Parish Councillor, and one of my pet hates is dog fouling. I love dogs and have always been a dog owner and if you take on the responsibility of owning a dog, you must take on the responsibility of cleaning up after them, as you would (hopefully) on your own premises. I do feel that most dog owners are responsible people; it's like most things, the few make it bad for the many!

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 20 August 2017 13:48 To: Environment Subject: Dog control consideration.

Dear SCDC with reference to the consideration of extending dog controls within the SCDC area. Whilst I can appreciate a minority of incidents has achieved a great deal of publicity , may I remind the committee there is already ample legislation to deal with these incidents on the statute books . Further legislation will do nothing to prevent these incidents as the offenders do not adhere to the rules and laws and any times therefore further draconian measures will only penalise the "willing" and will isolate our area from a valuable source of tourist income and relaxation for the residents and visitors alike . The issue is enforcement and there are not enough enforcers because of well known fiscal reasons , therefore further legislation will lead to more frustration to all .... one only has to listen to the constant moans of frustration from parish councils regarding speed enforcement in their communities. Further dog controls will do nothing to make any where more pleasant and safe but will merely add another frustration for people to voice their frustration at the Council and Police . Dog control is an educational need on owners and we are all aware that 99% of the time that bad behaved dogs reflect the traits of the owners. Will any new legislation and draconian measures achieve anything positive for this beautiful area ? I think not , please do not go down this route but try a more positive proactive approach rather than you can't do this or that or the other .... . Theses measures allegedly under consideration will do nothing the further the standing of an already under fire SCDC as well as causing this area to be the unnecessary subject of ridicule and scorn by residents and potential visitors alike . Thank you in anticipation. Ip12 1pd

From:

Sent: 20 August 2017 14:24 To: Environment Subject: PSPO 2017/12

I write in connection with the above proposed order planned to be made under Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. I am not a dog owner but believe that the proposed restrictions on exercising dogs off leads go far beyond what is reasonable or necessary. One of the other proposed orders covers the key anti-social aspects ofdogs I.e. fouling and I can understand that it is unacceptable for a dog to interfere with sports activities taking place on a sports ground, sports field or pitch (I find it hard to imagine a pitch that isn't on a sports ground or sports field) but the proposed order is so poorly worded that it could be interpreted as including any field or green at all when it is being used as a field or green.

I would be grateful if you could provide any evidence that you have that justifies these significant restrictions on dog owners

Parkeston Road, Felixstowe

Click here to report this email as

From:

Sent: 20 August 2017 14:41 To: Environment Subject: Dog Control in Public Spaces

Dunwich Suffolk

A friend of mine has alerted me to these proposals you are making, and I am writing to say that I agree with them. As a dog owner myself I am plagued by people allowing their dogs to run around off lead; as mine are always on lead these dogs pose a threat as they run at my dogs who, quite naturally react. Living on the Coastal Path makes this a huge problem.

However I must say that increasingly more people are becoming responsible, it seems always to be the few who ruin it for the rest.

Restriction on Beaches is also needed, - fouling where there are small children playing in the sand is horrible as well as a danger to health. I tried to ask our Parish Meeting to nominate an area of Dunwich Beach near the car park and the Beach Cafe as a restricted area, - from the reaction of the Meeting, you would have thought that I was advocating the destruction of every dog that visited the village!!

The sad truth is that you cannot rely on the responsibility of people, as so many simply are NOT. I am annoyed that our so-called representative in Parliament is against any form of "banning", but hardly surprising as her own dog fouled the village green in Westleton. She will not represent the views of her constituents in the House, and will not even listen to them.

I wish you success with this matter.

Yours faithfully,

From:

Sent: 20 August 2017 15:12 To: Environment Subject: Banning dogs

I was so disappointed to read this article about banning dogs. What evidence do you have that has made this proposal even hit the table to be discussed? Very rarely do you see dog off a lead in a child play area, and now you want them to stop being walked along the beach. We are supposed to be encouraging people to take more activity, this will discourage people from getting a dog and then they will just sit and vegetate. Please think hard of the laws that you are proposing and who is supposed to be monitoring/fining these people?

I would rather the council took time to look at the equipment in the playground, than monitoring dogs off leads.

From: Sent: 20 August 2017 18:17 To: Environment Subject: Dog Restrictions

Hello

As a dog owner I feel that these proposals are very unfair to dog owners

The proposals claim to be under Health and Safety what about the health of our dogs that benefit for proper exercise off their leads

I dislike the restrictions already imposed on your beaches and further restrictions on dog owners is very un-British for a nation of dog lovers

If you impose such restrictions I will not be visiting the Suffolk coast and no longer supporting the economy and residents you claim to be representing

Yours respectfully

Sent from my iPhone

From:

Sent: 20 August 2017 19:00 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders Felixstowe

Hello

I am writing in support of the proposals to introduce the Public Space Protection Orders. I feel that there will still be plenty of spaces in and around Felixstowe for dog walkers to take their pets to walk free from a lead. I grew up in rural Suffolk and even in villages there is the need to have dogs on leads when in some areas and other walks where dogs can run free. The proposed restrictions will not adversely affect the ability to exercise dogs or to take them out and about; instead they will make the environment better for all visitors around the town.

I have noticed that under the current arrangements a significant minority of dog owners feel that they do not need to comply with the signs requesting they walk their dogs on leads in specific areas such as on parts of Felixstowe beach and Landguard nature reserve.

Over the last couple of summers while walking on the nature reserve I have regularly approached dog owners with dogs running free to ask if they have seen the signs requesting that their dogs be on leads. 99% respond that they are aware but did not feel it necessary to comply. My frustration with the attitudes expressed led me to posting the following on the Felixstowe people's page on Facebook as a small attempt to change attitudes:

"After seeing a dog walking free and a person sitting on the beach in front of the enclosures at Landguard again this afternoon, I wondered if people's actions would be different if the endangered species was something that David Attenborough has done programmes about such as tigers and polar bears rather than a tiny little bird who wishes to raise young on our rare habitat on the nature reserve.

And I'm not referring to whether your actions would be different if it was an animal with the capacity to eat you or your dog, but the importance we attach to different species and the coverage some endangered species get in the media that others don't.

The signs at Landguard are there because if you sit on the beach in front of the enclosure, or if you well behaved dog runs back and forwards to you as you move along the beach, this can impact on the little ringed plovers' behaviour.

If you are sitting close to their nest, or if they are too frightened to return to their nest quickly enough in the early part .of the season their eggs will go cold and not hatch.

If it happens when their young are on the nest then the adult may make a distress call to the chicks, who respond. This can alert predatory birds to the location of the nest and the chicks are predated.

If it is when the parents want to take their young to the shallows to feed, your presence may prevent them from doing so and they will be unable to feed.

So if you hope that tigers or polar bears won't become extinct in our lifetime, please also extend your support to other rare species, even if they are tiny little birds who don't have wildlife documentaries made about them with voice overs by David Attenborough".

I feel that until the dog owners recognise the intent to deal seriously with their flouting of the requested use of leads, that no amount of signs will make a difference.

Sincerely

Felixstowe resident

From:

Sent: 21 August 2017 07:16 To: Environment Subject: Proposed changes re off lead dogs

Dear Sir/Madam,

Dog owners have become used to the exclusion areas on central parts of town beaches; but to extend the existing ban to cover the entire beach; or more parts of beach than our currently covered is really exceedingly nasty!

I fully agree that dogs should not be allowed - even on lead - in the fenced playing areas of children's play areas; but if there are other small areas of land such as churchyards or village greens; camping land areas in Stowmarket etc where dogs are currently allowed to be off leash....to change the present laws would be draconian.

As a responsible dog owner I DO believe that on the spot fines should be given to anyone allowing their dog to foul in a public place and NOT attempting to clear it up...... After they have been given one chance to clear the mess up (it is possible to miss your dog 'going' if you have been distracted. There is no need for owners to not be carrying suitable 'poo bags'..... perhaps in another area have the ability to stop owners in puplic spaces to check they have poo bags. I also think there should not be a right to be able to stop dog owners and check their dog has a microchip.

PLEASE do not further restrict the areas where dog owners can presently let their dogs run free!! Dog ownership is increasing in this country every day; and whilst I agree that owners should be responsible for cleaning up dog mess; and keeping their dog under reasonable control - it is most unjust to bring in further legislation to penalise dogs and their owners. On the spot fines for fouling or taking a dog into a fenced play area; but please do not extend bans on off leash dogs still further!

Yours sincerely,

From: Sent: 20 August 2017 22:58 To: Environment Subject: Dog walking

Your proposals are ridiculous and draconian.

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 18 August 2017 22:19 To: Environment Subject: Dog fouling

I would like to express my objection at the proposals put forwards by the council regarding dogs on Felixstowe beach. I see no issue with dogs being allowed on the beach particularly in the winter. I believe this is another case of councils in Suffolk creating more unnecessary rules where they are not needed. Is there no more important work to take up the councils time?

This is another case of responsible dog owners being penalised by the odd irresponsible owner, fanatical anti dog haters and an over zealous council. Please have a thought for all of the people in the community not just the few fanatics that would like rules for everything.

From:

Sent: 21 August 2017 09:34 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection orders

I am writing to query the proposed Public Space Protection orders regarding dog fouling and dogs on leads.

DOGS on LEADS I support the need for dogs on leads in urban areas, specifically as mentioned in your schedule: 3. All pedestrianised areas in urban areas including: a) The Thoroughfare, Woodbridge from its junction with Church Street, for its entire length northeast to its junction with Lime Kiln Quay Road 4. All sports grounds, fields, greens and pitches when in use as such. 5. All cemeteries and churchyards 6. All allotment sites on psorts grounds whether in or out of use However I do not understand and would appreciate your rationale for changes to current rules regarding dogs on leads in the following instances: 1. All public highways in the Suffolk Coastal District, including all classes of roads whether made or unmade, capable of carrying motorised vehicle traffic, EXCLUDING footpaths and rights of way not normally intended for public vehicular access. 2. All pedestrian footways and verges adjacent to public highways specified in 1 above. AND south of Shingle Street as outlined in a seperate Protection order. This is not an area with a greatly increased population in the summer, indeed if you were to proposed dogs on leads in front of the house on Shingle Street there would be mroe justification for this order.

DOG FOULING I understand public health issues regarding dog fouling in many places, especially children's play areas, paying fields and in urban areas. However for effective implementation dog fouling bins/other bins should be placed at regular intervals in all such areas. This is obviously not practical in many areas, such as woodlands and other rural areas. In fact the Forrestry Commission recommends a 'stick and flick' approach to dog fouling. (see article from March 2017) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39254072 . I believe the Forestry Commission-backed campaign for dog walkers to use a "stick and flick" the mess off the pathway and into the undergrowth, or cover it with leaves, is a more effective way of removing the mess in more rural areas. How can you justify otherwise?

Bromeswell Suffolk

From: Sent: 21 August 2017 09:55 To: Environment Subject: New dog control proposals

I am a resident of Felixstowe and have been so for 30plus years. I have always owned and walked dogs in and around the town. Felixstowe has a large retired population for whom walking dogs is a very important social and health activity.Look at any morning on the promenade and it's the quintessential heart of Felixstowe exercising and being the community that it is; it's worked well for many years. Not some sterile ,regulated empty space. I totally understand and appreciate the need to restrict dogs in high season on the family and tourist beaches but cannot understand why the town residents cannot re own the beaches out of season. Fouling and badly behaved dogs and owners will always ignore the restrictions leaving the responsible owners penalised. Shared space is just that and legislation should not punish the majority for the uncaring few. Ditto Landguard. Regards Sent from my iPhone

From:

Sent: 21 August 2017 11:15 To: Environment Subject: Comments on proposed dog controls

I fully support any efforts to deal with the (fairly large) minority of dog owners who fail to clean up after their pets, but feel that what you are proposing penalises decent dog owners who do control their dogs and clean up after them.

I would like to know why you are increasing rules when you are not enforcing those already in place, in many cases dog owners will be breaking the law unwittingly by taking their dog across a road off the lead or straying onto a piece of beach in the middle of winter when no-one is there.

For example Walton has restrictions on dogs on beaches, however if you go onto the area described as “dog friendly” where dogs are allowed the only signage to say when you have reached the end of the area and need to leave the beach is on the landward side of the sea wall – an unwitting Asbo for me under the rules. To avoid this you will need very clear signage both on and off the beach.

These proposals look very much like a desperate attempt to make money through easy fines rather than doing the more difficult job of policing out of control dogs and fouling (particularly fouling) that you are dismally failing in. would like to comment on the orders one by one. Landguard, it is a nature reserve and the potential for damage caused by dogs is high all year round therefore I am happy with this, there is also a fairly large area where dogs can come off leads just to the north.

Aldeburgh and Felixstowe beaches. As long as there are areas where dogs can be exercised of leads either end of the proposed restricted areas I can live with this but I do wonder why the current summer restriction is not enough. Has anyone looked to see how much use the beaches get in the winter or had a problem? Shingle St – is there a problem to solve? Last time I was there it was a deserted shingle spit, the real problem is dumping of fishing tackle and rubbish from boats

The Dog Fouling document I totally agree with but would really like to know what you are going to do to police this as the paths near me are awash with dog muck even near the bins and the signs. Any rule that cannot be enforced is a waste of time. Dogs in play areas happy with that The document I really have an issue with is the general document and some of the sweeping rules hidden in the documents.

The blanket prohibition of dogs off leads on a road and village greens for instance. I walk my dog on Foxhall and Rushmere Heaths, to get between the two I cross a side road. The dog is trained to sit and wait for a command to cross and crosses at heel, at the end of the walk I walk 100 yards from a lane to my house crossing one side road on a pavement with a verge between that and the road, the dog walks at heel. I also walk across the small green at Bladen Drive and let her off under close control. You would make me a law breaker for that – this is not necessary. Simply enforce rules about having a dog under control and clearing up. The trails of dog poop clearly left by a dog on a lead being dragged along while performing prove that being on a lead is not a solution to that particular problem so again what are you actually trying to fix?

Please remember good dog owners spend a lot of money in seaside and village cafes and pubs and unnecessarily restricting access to beaches, particularly out of season, will have a knock on effect. I hope you can redraft these rules to be less draconian and more focussed on individual problem areas (nature reserves, play areas, football pitches) and dealing with the current bad owners who let their dogs foul our wonderful footpaths, villages and streets rather than just blanket bans that penalise all.

Sincerely Glemham Drive IP4

From:

Sent: 21 August 2017 16:21 To: 'Charsfield Parish Council'; Cc: Environment; Subject: RE: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION

Hi All

Have read all this carefully now. It would seem the two proposed Public Space Protection Orders on Dog Fouling and Dogs On Leads (general) would apply to the recreation ground as a “restricted area” so I am assuming we would automatically be included under this. Doesen’t appear that we have to nominate the land. Just wondering if we can get any sort of official SCDC notice to put up to enforce it.

From:

Sent: 21 August 2017 16:47 To: Environment Subject:

I STRONGLY object to the proposal regarding dogs being kept on leads in so many new areas. We keep our dog on a lead a lot of the time for his safety but it should not be compulsory in so many different areas as how are dogs going to learn to behave and return to their owners if they can’t be trained properly. The Suffolk coast is a beautiful area which should be enjoyed by all and well trained dogs are part of this – the Government is so keen that people don’t become obese and take plenty of exercise and then they penalise those that have dogs in this way, entirely unacceptable.

If you also propose that children are put on leads in the same areas then perhaps this would be acceptable as in many cases their behaviour is much worse than dogs. People also pick up after their dogs and not children.

This is not acceptable and am disappointed that you would be considering such a policy without giving proper reasoning and also thinking through the areas where this should apply more thoroughly and explaining why.

Sent by

From:

Sent: 21 August 2017 20:24 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders

Dear Sir, Madam,

I am in agreement with the proposal on dogs in children's play areas. However, I have to disagree with the proposal for Landguard. The breeding areas and nature reserve are already protected by the restrictions of on lead dogs. But I do not believe this should be extended to the fore shore area as well. This is one of the few areas left where dogs and owners can relax and enjoy the sea and beach. I am not aware of any issues raised or caused by responsible dog walkers using this area and as a tax payer, would not be happy having further restrictions imposed.

Regards,

Sent from myMail for Android

From:

Sent: 22 August 2017 07:30 To: Environment Subject: PSPO consultation

I have already commented on the proposals and it occurred to me that there is something you could do that is missing.

Some councils have introduced fines for dog owners who are not carrying bags, this I would fully support. You could check for chips at the same time

Easy to enforce and it would impact on those irresponsible owners who are the cause of the problems

IP4 5BH

From:

Sent: 22 August 2017 13:44 To: Environment Subject: Proposal Exclusion of dogs on parts of Felixstowe Beach

Dear Sir/Madam.

I think you should revise your proposal to exclude dogs on parts of Felixstowe Beach. I think it would be OK for the summer months say Apr to Oct, but not winter.

Regards

IPSWICH

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk

Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in accordance

The following compliment or comment for Environmental Protection Comp was received on 13:44:53 22 Aug 2017.

CUSTOMER DETAILS Name: Address (if given)

Felixstowe

Suffolk

CONTACT DETAILS

Telephone:

Mobile:

COMPLIMENT OR COMMENT DETAILS Type: A comment to help us improve our service

Subject: Suffolk Coastal PSPO consultation

Details: the current consultation on the PSPO for Suffolk Coastal needs to be prominently displayed on the front/home page not tucked on the second page of a PSPO search: most people don't even know that the dog ban is covered under a PSPO.

Preferred Action (where appropriate):

An acknowledgement letter has been sent to the customer.

From:

Sent: 22 August 2017 19:37 To: Environment Subject: Consultation Response for the proposed new Public Space Protection Order

This artfully written proposal does not address how it could be policed fairly and, from the perspective of a Felixstowe dog owner, does not recognise that dogs need exercise off lead as well. It is written in an ambiguous way and does not demonstrate why it is needed over the current restrictions.

The tenor of the proposal is very authoritarian and does not allow for common sense. Dogs off lead in a children's playground or in a cemetery/churchyard is obviously unreasonable but dogs offlead in a big park that also happens to have a football match occurring in it is fine as long as they are kept apart. Its a question of commonsense.

Off course dog owners should pick up after their dog fouls but because of the language used in the proposal there is no room for commonsense. It is possible for a dog to defecate and the owner not to know or see it but if that is pointed out and the owner cleans up the mess then that should be an end of it. The proposal does not allow for this and is therefore open to over zealous application.

I think the most contentious part of the proposal is that dealing with Languard. There are 2 popular places for exercising your dog in Felixstowe - the park with the playing fields and Languard . Almost every day a large number of people walk and exercise their dogs at these venues. They are the biggest users of these limited green areas in Felixstowe. The list of prohibitions of activities at Languard has grown like weeds over the years and it seems to me that there is a lack of balance between the desires of the wildlife trust and the people who live in Felixstowe. One example of this the shoreline at Languard Point. You must have your dog on a fixed short lead despite being at the waters edge where there can't be birds nests. Why? Who decided it is only acceptable for a maximum 2 metre dog lead? This is an example of unacceptable authoritarianism. Why is it a crime for my dog to run free at the waters edge? Who is it hurting? The whole tenor of this proposal is anti dog owner and there are already too many regulations.

Potentially these restrictions will impact tourism as Felixstowe gets a reputation for being a non dog friendly place.

From: Sent: 23 August 2017 10:28 To: Environment Subject: New dog rules

These rules seem to be ok. How will they be enforced? By whom will they be enforced?

Are dogs allowed to foul public footpaths across fields or are owners supposed to pick up ?

Regards Kirton

From:

Sent: 23 August 2017 10:58 To: Environment Cc: clerk Subject: PSPO's

Back during the initial consultation process I responded on behalf of Kirton & Falkenham P.C., having received no reply to this I repeated my questions at a later date and was informed that my concerns would be included in any proposal for PSPO’s.

I have now seen the proposals regarding dog fouling and associated matters, it would appear that the proposals cover all concerns relating to dogs, thank you.

In my response I also raised a proposal to restrict the parking of cars on the village green at Kirton, is there any update on this?

Please send any reply to me by e-mail

for Kirton & Falkenham Parish Council

e-mail: -

From:

Sent: 22 August 2017 14:50 To: customerservices Subject: Dogs

Dear sir madam

We appreciate what you have done regarding keeping dogs tethered on certain beaches but would like to see this extended to Brackenbury beach huts as this problem keeps arisising with young children dogs being allowed to run free . We have noted they have been dead rabbits left laying around obviously killed by dogs .it's only a matter of time when somebody gets bitten could we please make the area safe so children play .

Regards

Sent from my Samsung device

From: Sent: 24 August 2017 16:01 To: Environment Subject: New dog proposals

DearSir/ madam, with regard to the current proposals dealing with dogs. I am in complete agreement with most but have concerns about the dogs being on leads on playing fields and football pitches. As a puppy walker for Guide dogs I need somewhere secure to train the puppies in recall and as such need to let them off lead. I assume that if one pitch is being used for practice or game I then need to keep the dog on lead across the whole field. Why can there not be a secure dog walking area provided as there is in certain parks in Ipswich. Dog fouling is always shouted as the reason however foxes etc foul there too and after some matches/ practices the amount of rubbish left my the players is awful. Plastic bottles, food, clothes, damaged balls etc yet that is ignored. I agree with the other proposals but most of these are already supposedly in place but are never policed. I have spoken to many people who have dogs on the beach in the no dog area and simply get abused. They know that nothing is ever done so blatantly carry on doing it. Regards Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 29 August 2017 15:22 To: Environment Subject: Dog consultation feedback

Good afternoon,

Thank you for having a consultation on dog-related issues. It all seems to be a fair balance and generally is very clear. I only have one comment:

Regarding the "Dogs on Leads" schedule, it would be helpful to everyone if there was a more specific reference to the Promenade at Felixstowe. There is sometimes confusion about whether dogs should be on a lead on the Promenade, and indeed in the recently refurbished Seafront Gardens, (as opposed to the separate beach restriction issue). My feeling is that the new regulations should specifically mention both these areas as being ones where dogs should be on a lead at all times. yours faithfully

Felixstowe

From:

Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 2:57 PM To: Town Clerk Subject: RE: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION

Good afternoon .

The revised wording & plan have been uploaded onto the website at: http://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/environment/environmental-protection/animals/dog-control/public-space- protection-orders/

The boundaries at both ends now clearly refer to identifiable physical features (the groynes) as discussed rather than the imaginary lines referred to in the previous version and the by-law.

Regards

From: Town Clerk [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 15 August 2017 10:39 To: Subject: RE: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION

Hi Andrew, thanks for coming back to me. As far as I can tell the proposed Order is no different to the version Council saw in March so if it is ok to amend in view of Council’s comments back then that would be great.

Perhaps something like the below for the wording with the shaded area amended at the south-west section to match?:

2. The Restricted Area: The proposed Order would apply to the area of beach northwards from groyne “X” ( TBC – would you like me to find this out for you?) opposite Manwick Road at Grid Reference TM 29670 33649 (I have updated but can you check this please ) to groyne “Y” (TBC) opposite the South-Eastern Corner of the Spa Pavilion at Grid Reference TM 3060 3445 (gridreferencefinder.com suggested TM 30627 34442 - again you may wish to check ) including any slope or staircase leading to the beach from the promenade, as shown on the attached plan.

Thanks,

From:

Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 5:50 PM To: Town Clerk Subject: RE: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION

The pink shading takes the limit of the area to the relocated groyne at the north end (which I believe was the root of the problem and resolves it?). If you'd like to suggest an alternative form of wording it will be a simple job to change. Regards

-----Original Message----- From: Town Clerk [ [email protected] ] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 01:55 PM GMT Standard Time To: Subject: RE: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION

Just received your email via Environmental as below. I will pass on to the Town Council Members for info and will get back to you with any new comments if forthcoming.

One thing however, as you are aware, the Town Council did look at some of the draft orders back in March and were supportive of the plans. Council suggested that, in relation to dogs on the beach, perhaps that order could describe a stretch of the beach that clearly correlated to a physical marker on the ground; e.g. “between groyne number x to groyne number y”, rather than an imaginary line. Yet I see that the proposed Order still refers to imaginary lines. Was Council’s input not deemed suitable for some reason?

Thanks,

Town Clerk

Felixstowe Town Council

From: Environment [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 1:45 PM To: Environment Subject: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION

I am writing to advise you that we are considering amending certain controls in force in relation to dogs and other matters, across the Suffolk Coastal District.

The attached letter provides a link to this information published on the Council’s website, including the details of the individual orders currently under consideration. Any comments should be sent to [email protected] by Friday 22 September 2017.

If you require this information in hard-copy format, please let us know.

If you have any queries at all on this matter, please contact us through the same email address.

Regards

Environmental Protection Manager

Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils [email protected]

Dear sir madam

Regards

Sent from my Samsung device

Click here to report this email as spam.

From:

Sent: 23 August 2017 15:36 To: Environment Subject: PSPO - Felixstowe

I am writing to you regarding the new PSPO legislation that you are trying to roll out for Felixstowe and general areas regarding dogs/ owners.

I personally own 2 well behaved, and controlled happy English Bull Terriers. My disabled husband and I live in Arwela Road in Felixstowe.

We have lived there for over 17 years and for this time have always been aware of the current restrictions re the beach from May to September and other ‘laws’.

We always ‘turn right’ and walk down south towards the Martello park end with our dogs on the prom. I know they are not allowed on the beach in the other direction. Do they now have to be on a lead on the prom and on the beach

Walking south wards???

Something else I wish to clarify something if I may. Your new PSPO re ‘ Dogs on Leads’ close to Sports fields etc. Will this relate The Grove Woods?

I regularly walk both our dogs there, off lead as this is a lovely walk to enjoy with them both. We walk round the woods, and then round the ‘field’.

The ‘Field’ at The Grove is sometimes used for Football, and at these times I keep away from players, and walk my dogs away from them, round the edge of the field. Will this new ‘law’ mean

that they now have to be on a lead, every time I walk round the grove?? If this is the case I think several dog owners are going to be very upset.

People seem to think it’s always the dogs at fault, and owners, despite being responsible dog owners.

I walked up there on Sunday, after ‘Football’ training had finished and the pitches were coved in empty plastic bottles and rubbish!! All from the people playing football. Not from dogs.

I picked up several bottles and carried them all the way back to the car park, and disposed of them. Now we are to be told we have to keep our dogs on leads there? Is this the case?

Id appreciate some clarification on this please. As more and more dog owners in our lovely town are beginning to feel like we have nowhere left to walk our dogs. Which is very sad.

When you go on holiday to Dorset/ Weymouth they allow dogs to play and run into the sea there and it a lovely sight. Admittedly on certain ‘designated’ areas of the beach.

How about you put nice ‘Dog Friendly’ signs up at the places where they are allowed, to encourage dog owners, rather than keep penalising us as owners. This make take some of the fraction out of it.

Thank you

Felixstowe, Suffolk IP11 2DG

From: Penny Sent: 24 August 2017 16:01 To: Environment Subject: New dog proposals

Sent: 23 August 2017 18:29 To: Environment Subject: PSPO

Dear Sir

I am e-mailing this in the hope that the input is in line with your Facebook request. (apologies if I misunderstood)

I am a dog owner and I live on the sea front in Felixstowe.

I would like to see all dogs on leads in all public places all year round, including the prom and the parks. I would also like to see more signs and more enforcement to deal with anti social behaviour including dog owners who are not carrying poop bags. If they don't have the means to clear up then they are probably the very people causing the nusiance. (easier to catch too).

The prom can be quite busy with dogs, kids, joggers, bicycles, etc and although MOST dog owners are responsible these new bye laws are really about public safety and I hope it will help.

As a dog owner I often have to fend off dogs while the owners are miles away distracted by their mobile phones, etc and I recently picked up a lady in her 70's who suffered in a similar incident - it could have been avoided but tighter controls certainly work for me.

Thank you for the opportunity to give input to my community and take part in the conversation.

Kindest Regards

Felixstowe

Suffolk IP11 2BH

Sent from my Samsung device From: Sent: 23 August 2017 19:30 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Further Dog restrictions on Beaches

Dear Sir/Madam

In line with consultation period surrounding further proposals to restrict the use of Beaches and Public spaces for Dog owners.

I find the proposal to be completely unnecessary and discriminatory against responsible dog owners. Both Felixstowe and Aldeburgh Beaches have sufficient restrictions for both dog owners and bathers/families to enjoy the Suffolk coastline.

If dog owners go to the beach they expect to find dogs in that area? Why would a non dog owner go to a part of the beach where they maybe uncomfortable being around dogs?

All responsible dog owners are aware of their responsibilities around behaviour and fouling of a public space - a minority as in general society may not comply but that should not be a catalyst to penalise the majority.

Further consideration should be given tourism - a U.K. holiday to any beach location will come with an expectation their family pet will join them - it's part of the appeal holidaying in the U.K.

I fully support the use of fines for dog owners that fail to clear up after their dog or take them to parts of the beach already designated as restricted.

Regards

Sent from my iPad From: Sent: 23 August 2017 21:07 To: Environment Subject: Dog control

Hi We were asked to express our opinion regarding nuisance dogs,I think all dogs should be kept on leads in public areas,

I've got 2 small dogs who are continuously harassed by much bigger out of control dogs,even if I didn't have them I wouldn't want to be approached at speed when they're out of control,I often wonder how people with young children can walk across parks.

My small dog won't even go on a park if there are other dogs on there now,he's completely lost confidence from being bowled over

Felixstowe Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 23 August 2017 22:12 To: Environment Subject: PSPO dog controls SCDC

Dear Sirs I would like to comment favourably on the proposals to increase controls on dogs in public spaces. The proposal is totally in accord with public health and environmental protection and I welcome it. Responsible dog owners have nothing to fear from these changes and they are necessary to protect public health from those less responsible dog owners. Regards

Sent from my iPhone

From:

Sent: 23 August 2017 23:04 To: Environment Subject: Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 Public Space Protection Orders – Dog Controls in the Suffolk Coastal District

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 Public Space Protection Orders – Dog Controls in the Suffolk Coastal District

I fully support the increase of all the proposed dog controls and the widening of the area of control for Felixstowe beach

The only thing that concerns me is enforcement, how will you do it effectively?

Felixstowe

From:

Sent: 24 August 2017 07:49 To: Environment Subject: PSPO

Dear Sir

I emailed yesterday contributing to the PSPO conversation and I wish to add one more thing please.

Felixstowe prom - visitors can often be seen feeding chips to sea guls. This isn't good for the birds and it's not especially good to have agressive guls expecting food.. a few rules / signs might be useful.

Regards

From: Sent: 24 August 2017 08:01 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on Beaches

It may well be in the public interest to stop dogs running on beaches all year, or only allowing dogs on leads during winter months. However, it is a complete waste of time and public money bring in by-laws and regulations unless there is the finance and planning in place to adequately police and enforce them.

--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com

From:

Sent: 24 August 2017 08:56 To: Environment Subject: Dogs

I have noticed your proposed plans regarding dogs on beaches etc.

As far as I am concerned,the more places that dogs are banned or put on leads ,the more I would like it. As someone who has a lifelong phobia of dogs I am almos 1t unable to go out these days as more and more people seem to own at least one dog.There are more and more dog friendly places these days and they are ruining my life.

Please be aware of people like me before you decide. Thanks

1 From:

Sent: 24 August 2017 09:31 To: Environment Subject: Dog Control In Felixstowe

You are worrying about dog controls in Felixstowe, how about dealing with the anti social behaviour of the young people in Felixstowe at Night with all the damage they do and the rowdyness that they do, in particular their is a trailer that is parked on the grass at the junction of Langley Ave./ Grange Road I have seen many times in the morning that it has been turned over and damaged more everytime, does the police do anything NO, how about all the screaming and yelling that happens in Grange Road in the early hours of the morning, especially at the weekends does the Police do anything NO, and why is this because we have NO police presence in Felixstowe, and what does Suffolk Coastal DC do ?, they just worry about dog fouling, its good to know what our Council priorites are.

How about our so called councillors getting off their backsides and doing something that they were elected by the public, they are quick enough getting their pictures in the papers but when it involves work and to get the hands dirty they are no where to be seen, untill every 5 years when they want to be re-elected, every councillor who represents Felixstowe is a complete JOKE !!!

From:

Sent: 24 August 2017 14:32 To: Environment Subject: Exclusion of dogs on Felixstowe beach

Sir I’d like to offer my comment on the above subject, as a resident of Felixstowe for almost 10 years and a dog owner I would find this change totally unacceptable and unnecessary. The current rules are well adhered to by dog owners and the long stretch of beach from the top of my road (Manwick to the Spa Pavilion) is plenty of room to accommodate those who wish to use the beach in the summer without being potential bothered by a dog. There are plenty of dog owning visitors who also come to the beach in the summer, many of whom who regularly stop me as I walk along the prom four times a day with my border collie, to ask where they can take their dog on the beach here in Felixstowe in the summer months. Their needs should also be met surely?

In the winter months ie Oct to May there are little and often no visitors to the beach or the prom for large parts of the day and therefore there is no need to change the current restrictions for dogs on the beach here at Felixstowe.

If we are banning those who cause a problem on our beaches perhaps we should put up signs to ban those who daily leave their personal litter and (fishing lines!) scattered along the coastline rather than a four-legged friend who is purely enjoying exercising themselves and their owner.

With kind regards

Publicist . Presenter . Food & Features Writer

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 24 August 2017 16:53 To: Environment Subject: Dogs and beaches

Watch any television and you will straightaway see images of dogs on beaches from Supervet to old movies and everywhere in between.

This is because taking the dog for a run on the beach is embedded in the DNA of animal lovers. To propose to block that right is self-evidently just plain ridiculous.

Is the council so set on spoiling fun and enjoyment? Does it wish to drive away the visitors from Ipswich and elsewhere, who come expressly to walk the dog on the beach (and spend money in our economy while here?

Who ever heard of anything so daft?

IP11

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 24 August 2017 17:21 To: Environment Subject: Dogs

Please go ahead and extend these controls.

There seem to be more people who do not clean up after their dogs and let their dogs run wild off leads terrorising other beach users. The owners seem amused by others fearing their dogs.

Sent from my iPad

From:

Sent: 24 August 2017 17:54 To: Environment Subject: Dog Controls

Dear Sir or Madam,

I fully support and encourage the proposed changes to dog controls in the Suffolk Coastal District.

I have personally witnessed the lack of consideration, given to other members of the public, by irresponsible dog owners, in that they allow their dogs to foul without then clearing it up and by allowing their dogs to run free on playing fields, children’s play areas and beaches.

Responsible dog owners should not be concerned by the proposed changes.

Kind regards,

From:

Sent: 24 August 2017 19:03 To: Environment Subject: Dog Controls in the Suffolk Coastal District

Hi, I have read and welcome your proposed changes relating to better dog control in our local community. I would only question how these rules would be enforced as current bye-laws already in places like Landguard Common beach area continue to be flouted on a daily basis and nothing seems to be done about it. I appreciate the changes are a step in the right direction but fear they do not go far enough, I feel all dogs should be kept on short leads in all public places. We have a beach hut in Old Felixstowe and regularly experience stray dogs invading our space, even into our hut sometimes. On two occasions, our daughter has been bitten (not seriously) by dogs, of which when confronted the owners were totally oblivious to the incidents!! I am not against dogs but feel that if you own one you should take full responsibility for it and the only way that can possibly happen is if the dog is close to the owner, not running off up to half a mile away. Anyway, I totally support the stance you are adopting – keep up the good work. Kind Regards,

From: Sent: 24 August 2017 19:11 To: Environment Subject: Proposed regulations with regards to Dogs

I want to say that I am worried about these changes as I feel that in their present form they are ambiguous. There is too much room for areas which can be changed to suit whoever is enforcing them.

Dog owners are citizens too!!

Rgds Felixstowe

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 24 August 2017 20:23 To: Environment Subject: Dog control/ public space protection orders

As a resident of Felixstowe I wish to make some observations on the consultation proposals. I have previously contacted the council regarding dog fouling which may involve a minority of dog owners but is nevertheless disproportionately disgusting. As a regular early morning runner an activity which coincides with dog walkers I often witness the evidence of fouling the frequency of which increases in the winter when it is dark .It is clear that responsibility on behalf of owners decreases when they can get away with it .Having challenged your officer on this I was given the responsibility of providing evidence and reminded that there there already legislation in place to fine offenders . When I asked how many offenders had been fined I was told none on the basis that the Council did not want to be heavy handed . When I asked how often the prime areas for dog walkers were under surveillance at prime times ( early morning and evening ) I was informed none as the normal working day was nominally 9 - 5. Whilst there is urgent need to tighten up on the rules and legislation all of this will be irrelevant if enforcement by the local authority is not taken seriously. Some comments on some specific issues :- Beach - there is no logic to limiting the restricted area for only part of the beach . Historically the current area was indeed the most used beach as I remember it in the 50's and 60's . That is not the case now and if the density of beach huts is an indicator ,which it is , then the exclusion zone must extend from Manor End to the car park steps adjacent to Felixstowe Ferry golf course . Playing Fields - It must be an absolute that dogs are excluded from children's play areas and the area immediately around them .I believe this ban should also include where sports are played for example on Eastward Ho .If this playing has to made accessible then designated areas should be identified to control the area of fouling .Even the action by diligent and responsible owners does not achieve a perfect clean up and residue is left in areas where children and sportspeople play. Access to the countryside is not far from anywhere in Felixstowe to provide freedom for dogs and there owners to exercise. Dogs on leads- I endorse the proposals to extend the need to keep dogs on leads . It does not need a dangerous dog to cause offence; an over friendly dog can also be unwelcome which is very often not understood by its owner. I hope this is helpful. Regards Felixstowe IP11 9HD

From: Sent: 24 August 2017 21:20 To: Environment Subject: Dog controls

I heard about your proposals on the Felixstowe residents page. There are 2 extreme dog haters on there who out dreadful anti dog posts up. I am absolutely against the setting up or extension of any further dog restrictions. You have gone too far already and a run down seaside town like Felixstowe will suffer if the dog owning tourists stop coming due to these specified areas /lead controls. It is over regulation of something that is not a problem. If you have money to spare and time on your hands to sit around debating this, May I suggest you think on the closing of the police station, the spate of home burglaries around the town, and the vandalising of benches/sea shelters etc. These are the real worrying issues.

From: Sent: 24 August 2017 21:24 To: Environment Subject: Dog controls

From: ] Sent: 24 August 2017 21:29 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on beaches

Hi,

I have a few comments I would like to add to be considered.

My dogs love the beach. They love the strange feel of the sand when they roll around on it and how it moved about when they run around after each other. They absolutely love the beach. When I walk them down the prom one of my dogs physically stop and won't walk any further until I let him go on the beach. He will not move. It's incredible the amount of strength my little stubborn pooch gets when he wants to go rolling in the sand. It's ridiculous the amount of happiness ten minutes rolling around on their backs in the sand brings to my two boys.

They don't have a voice but I do and my argument would be this- I have walked down the prom and witnessed people smoking marijuana in the middle of the day and littering the beach itself but also the path behind them. Literally to the point where I have had to step over coffee cups and other catering disposables. I have walked past dirty pairs of children's pants laying on the beach on numerous occasions . I have discovered BBQ debris hidden in the sand. I have also heard of human beings treating the sea life that washes up on the beach cruelly too.

I clean up after my dogs all the time regardless. I will confidently state that my dogs are cleaner and kinder for Felixstowe beaches than the majority of 'human' beach users. I agree some dog users do let us down but that's only a small minority. The vast population of dog walkers should not be penalised because of the small percentage of irresponsible dog owners.

We don't stop humans from going on the beach despite the fact that there's an extremely large group of humans that abuse the privilege of the seaside and break the law by littering, drinking in public and using drugs on it in public . This needs to be about equality and the right for anyone/ anything to use the beach. God made the earth, man did not make the beach (so to speak). Therefore what gives anyone the right to dictate who and who can't use the beach?

Kind regards,

From:

Sent: 25 August 2017 08:09 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on beaches in suffolk coastal areas.

Good Morning,

I wanted to comment on the proposed changes to dog rules on Suffolk beaches.

As a resident of Suffolk all of my life I feel the controls in place are more than adequate. I feel the vast majority of dog owners are considerate and clear up after their dogs, (certainly to the same degree that most people are responsible and put their litter in a bin.)

Any further measures to ban dogs from beaches is discriminatory.

Banning dogs from beaches also restricts their owners. Dog owners are often the people who by necessity are outside on days where weather is bad and the majority of the public would chose other attractions. They spend money in coastal areas throughout the year and to ban them would impact this.

People taking their dog with them on holiday is a growing trend. I actively research which areas are dog friendly before booking a holiday and avoid areas that aren't.

It would be a great shame if I was unable to visit Felixstowe anymore because of poorly though out dog rules.

I think asking people to keep dogs on leads in areas with ground birds nesting is reasonable and asking people to put dogs on leads on footpaths near roads is common sense. Dogs and their owners should be allowed to have some safe and spacious areas to run on next to the sea. Notably in summer the dog areas of the beach at Felixstowe are very crowded and the dog free areas considerably less so.

Yours sincerely,

From:

Sent: 25 August 2017 09:32 To: Environment Subject: New proposals re Dogs on leads

Dear team - Anti Social Behaviour Crime & Policing Act 2014

2017/12 – Dogs on Leads (General)

Having read your proposal, I am amazed. It seems to have been put together with very little knowledge of the subject matter: dogs.

I get that dogs are not everyone’s cup of tea. I get that dogs and children’s play area and sports field don’t mix. I also get that wildlife and beaches should be respected. But, as a responsible dog owner, I am aware that having a dog makes you responsible for its wellbeing, and that not looking after it properly is the very thing that is going to turn a dog into a problem dog, with all that entails. This includes allowing it enough exercise (off leash) and socialization with other dogs to have its energy spent and interests met. Keeping dogs on leads pretty much all the time is not going to do that and is storing up trouble for everyone.

I personally exercise my dog mainly on the green behind Morrison’s on Grange Avenue. I know many others who can not travel to allow their dog that opportunity elsewhere. Simply put, that field is very important to us for that reason. It is convenient, and I use it almost every day. I do not know how else I would be able to keep my dog as happy and well exercised as it currently is, and that in turn is very important to my wellbeing, as it is for many others. (I would like to say that I often get compliments on how well behaved my dog is ... for a Jack Russell.)

Personally I would rather have a large section of the green fenced off so people could let their dogs off the lead in a safe environment and the dogs can let off steam and give the rest over to the general public.

Nowadays, with the advent of the Dog Whisperer and such people, no one needs to have a problem dog. Just like nowadays no one needs to have a problem car. (Driving licenses and MOTs see to that.) Dogs are still thought of as possessions, accessories, and I think that many people end up having dogs that are not suitable for them, because no one requires them to put any thought into it. Every week I meet several people who frankly are a disaster waiting to happen. They manage their dogs in a way that is going to cause problems. For the dog, for the owner or their family, for some third party. I sometimes joke that most people if consulted would be able to tell you exactly and correctly what to do if encountering a grizzly bear, but would not be able to do so when encountering a dog. (Let’s face it, one is more likely to encounter the latter in England.)

I often see parents earnestly teach their children exactly what one should not do when meeting dogs. So again, as a responsible dog owner, aware that not everyone has that strong need to “do dogs”, I teach others where I can. I would hope though that a case could be made that, just like one teaches children how to operate in traffic safely, a lesson or two in school could be used teaching children correctly what to do with dogs, including what not to do if they are scared.

I also think that, rather than imposing the dogs-on-lead policy, which would then also have to be policed, prosecuted and what not, (That isn’t working very well with the dog-fouling policy if the state of the green I mentioned is anything to go by ...) one would be better off putting together a basic competency test on responsible dog ownership, that would result in a licence without which dog ownership would not be allowed. The licence could be a credit card size thing that one could carry at all times when walking the dog, as well as say three spare doggie bags. This would ensure that people gave real thought to what dog ownership entails, what their responsibilities would be and whether they feel they could meet them for the dog they have in mind. This would put us as a community ahead of problems, instead of picking up problems afterwards.

Kind regards,

From:

Sent: 26 August 2017 09:57 To: Environment Subject: Dog Control

Good Morning SCDC

I am writing to give our FULL support to the proposed dog controls for Felixstowe. If I may just make a couple of suggestions.

1. Whatever is approved it MUST be enforced. At the moment dog owners let their dogs run free on the promenade, in the gardens and even on the restricted area of the beach. And nobody appears to do anything about it. If you have any statistics as to the number of owners fined over say the last 3 years for breaking these laws I would be most pleased to see them.

2. Owners also need to be told to use discretion when walking dogs on extending leads when in the company of other members of the public. These types of lead are an absolute menace. Most owners are quite oblivious to where the dog is, they just consider they are complying with the lead requirements without any consideration to other users. The majority of people who do not own dogs, do not want dogs coming up to them and, for example, leaving saliva on trousers or legs.

Please make sure that whatever is approved IS enforced.

Yours

Felixstowe

IP11 9JZ

From:

Sent: 27 August 2017 08:32 To: Environment Subject: Proposed Public space protection order

Dear Sir

I would like to express my whole hearted support for the Proposed Public space protection order to do with dogs.

Also I would hope you will adequately inform Everyone including our numerous visitors who come to walk their dogs.

Your sincerely

From:

Sent: 27 August 2017 11:28 To: Environment Subject: New proposals to local laws regarding dogs.

Whilst most of your new suggestions seem fair and appropriate, the legislation requiring dogs on leads on roads, paths, cemeteries, allotments and sports fields and greens seems a little restrictive.

I can understand the roads and verges but sports fields and greens are often big and are usually being used by others. For many this would mean dogs couldn't be walked off lead in their area. Take old felixstowe community centre area. The tennis and children's play area are fenced and dogs quite rightly should not be allowed in. But the football goals are used casually and many dogs are walked nearby without any disturbance to the players.

These rules seem hugely restrictive to tackle perhaps a handful of incidents. Individual owners should be tackled if their dog is not under control - a law in its own right anyway - not the entire population of dog owners.

Considering the very limited response you had this also leads me to think its a little over the top. Most dog owners are responsible and careful. Owning a dog and walking it is a healthy relaxing pastime and not one you as a council should discourage. Dogs who aren't allowed to get a good run off lead are more likely to develop anti social behaviour.

So unless you intend to create off lead dog areas to compensate for every restricted area I think you are creating more of a problem. It won't solve bad dog owners. They won't just comply. They need addressing individually as I said.

Thank you

Felixstowe

IP11 9PD

From: Sent: 27 August 2017 12:25 To: Environment Cc: Subject: To whom it may concern, I am a council tax payer in Suffolk Coastal District (IP12 3BT) and have been for nearly 50 years. I was born in Ipswich and spent my early childhood in Alderton. My grandmother was a county councillor and I am very attached to this part of the world. In principal, I am opposed to restrictions being placed on the free movement of people and find myself sympathetic to Ms Coffey's statement in relation to the dog restraint proposals being "Draconian". For 25 years I served on the General Council of The PDSA (People's Dispensary for Sick Animals). During those years I found little empathy for the charity's work. People, by and large, failed to see the value of companionship that the ownership of a dog provided for the mainly disadvantaged and elderly. Donations to animal charities were often viewed with contempt especially by urban dwellers, whose dogs were fashion accessories (and my neighbours at my London address at the time). I fear that dog owners are a small minority and are viewed as purveyors of dog excrement , snarling ferocity and loud barking . In the last few years however, dog ownership has been influenced by modern expectations, and there has been a response to the demand for less fouling of public spaces by clearing up after their animals. I believe that companion animals, in this case dogs, should be considered and the rights of the minority should, as in true democracies, be protected by those in authority. PDSA publishes much on the benefits of companion animals which I recommend as part of your "consultation" . Of course the most important thing to remember is that it is unnatural for dogs to be on leads. This deprives their owners of the pleasure of seeing their dogs at play, either on their own or with others and enjoying the companionship of other dog lovers. I do hope you can avoid the heartlessness and oppression that is contained in your proposal. I understand that Shingle Street is in the parish of Bawdsey which goes from the mouth of the Ore to the mouth of the Deben. Should the law be enforced in the whole parish of Bawdsey then there will be no access for people in Alderton to any part of the beach to let their dogs run free. Those who own water loving dogs like Spaniels and Labradors will no longer have the pleasure of seeing their dogs swimming in the sea. Now that East Lane has been lost as a swimming venue to local people by the new sea defences (fenced off areas and dangerous rocks) , we are now forced to go to Shingle Street . Perhaps you could learn from the experience that I enjoy in Cambridgeshire. The land owners provide a number of walks for locals where people can let their dogs run free. This is a much valued boon to all of us dog owners . The land owners have created a community of the likeminded and is a help in tackling the loneliness issue estimated to affect 1.8million people in modern times. I suppose the Suffolk Tourist Guide's section on the county being dog friendly is one of the purest pieces of hypocrisy ever written. It is not surprising after reading those sugary words that government in all its forms is held in such contempt by so many . I hope that these comments help you to drop the proposals that are being considered. Perhaps the decision has already been made and this "consultation " is just another sham? Just for the record, I have been to Shingle Street for the last 4 or 5 days and I can assure you that I did not see one dog cause a disturbance to anyone and I saw all dog owners being highly conscientious about cleaning up after their dogs. Kind regards, Cambs PE19 5BF

From:

Sent: 27 August 2017 19:41 To: Environment Subject: Re: Public Space Protection Orders

DOGS ON LEADS

Your understanding that most dog owners are responsible and will control and clean up after their pets may be true. However, most only implies a majority. My concern is about the minority.

In our village which attracts a considerable number of visitors with an increasing number of dogs we don't experience many aggressive animals but a short walk at almost any time is enough to encounter off lead dogs which jump up on other walkers. When we tell the owners that we don't like dogs jumping up at us we are almost invariably informed that the dogs are friendly: a large minority of dog owners show no respect for other users of public places and think everyone should like unavoidable contact with their pets.

The problem has become so acute that we don't go out of our house except before and after popular visiting hours because we know that nearly every walk will mean an argument with a dog owner. We find that a lot of people tolerate irresponsible dog owners but we don't. Dog owners make our village stressful.

My firmly held view is that all dogs should be kept on leads in all public places at all times.

Many thanks

Dunwich

IP17 3DU

From:

Sent: 28 August 2017 11:51 To: Environment Subject: Dog exclusion areas in Felixstowe

I completely agree with keeping the existing dog exclusion areas on Felixstowe Beach, either side of the pier. Not everyone likes sunbathing on a beach with dogs around, peeing all over your belongings. Please either keep these exclusion areas exactly as they are now, but Please Enforce them, with Dog Wardens patrolling the beach during May to September, & prosecute offenders. Thank You. Yours Sincerely

From:

Sent: 28 August 2017 20:22 To: Environment Subject: WEBSITE ERROR

Having tried to get more information on your PSPO / dog ban consultation, I tried to access Public Space Protection Orders East Suffolk www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/environment/environmental- protection/animals/dog-control/public-space-protection-orders only to find the site comes up with a Privacy Error, saying Malware is present on the site and someone is trying to steal my information.

Have your say on changes to dog controls » East Suffolk www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/news/have-your-say-on-changes-to-dog-controls/ says there have been changes to the designated area of the beach at Felixstowe but does not give details, so how is a Felixstowe dog owner able to have their say without knowing what the changes are? Could you please check your websites and let me know the (safe) website which gives details of the changes in designation at Felixstowe in order that I may comment?

Many thanks.

Felixstowe

Suffolk IP11 9LU

From:

Sent: 29 August 2017 16:04 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Order

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in regard to the proposal to enforce dogs to be kept on leads in certain areas.

Looking through the documents the area that concerns me most is ‘All sports grounds, fields, greens and pitches when in use as such’

I think clarification of this is needed to define ’in use as such’ .

Kingston Field, Woodbridge comes to the forefront, as lots of dogs on and off lead, enjoy the open space. It is a large open space with room to play ball games along with families and older children etc. These types of activities are very poplar and I have not witnessed any problems with dogs. I can appreciate there are problems if owners are irresponsible and not clear up dog mess, but that is a separate offence.

Is the intention to ban dogs from running free in this type of situation?

Many people with small gardens, older or disabled dog owners have an excellent opportunity to allow their dogs off lead in areas such as these. It is also a good place to social dogs, I believe limiting this recreation to ‘on lead only’ for canines could create problems by loss of freedom.

Responsible owners would again be penalised and irresponsible ones, I fear would take no notice.

I therefore object to the proposal

Yours faithfully

From:

Sent: 29 August 2017 19:10 To: Environment Subject: Have your say on changes to dog control

Hello, I was born in Felixstowe and have spent nearly almost all my life living here and always had dogs. When the ban was bought in not allowing dogs on part the part of the beach from Arwela Road to near the Spa Pavilion from May to October we understood and except that but banning them from the whole of Felixstowe coastal line is wrong. Parts of the beach should be open all year to everyone and that included dogs and their owners. Felixstowe is a seaside town that needs and wants to attract day visitors and holiday makers and many of these have dogs who are seen as part of the family so going away without them would be a no no. Suffolk claims to be a dog friendly county but what a complete ban say to dog owners is Felixstowe isn't and dogs and their owners and the money they might spend here are not welcome. Felixstowe also has many dog owners who live here who enjoying walking their dogs on the beach and letting them go for a swim what ever the weather. And they should be able to do that all year round on at least some of the beach. I agree with fixed penalty notices for dog owners who don't clean up after their dogs. I like to see the council start to issues them for irresponsible dogs owners. We agree with the proposals to keep dogs on leads on roadside paths , in the town centre area and cemetery ,churchyard or allotments as it would be dangerous and disrespectful not to. And we also agree dogs shouldn't be allowed on fenced gated children play areas. And keep dogs on leads on Landguard Point Nature Reserve . We already do this as we too want to make sure we protection our precious nesting birds and wildlife . But we don't agree that dogs should be keep on leads sports grounds as most are on public parks . Most people don't have huge garden their dogs can have a good run in so so use their local parks. Dogs need to be able to have a good run around to keep them healthy in body and mind to help prevent serious behaviour issues. Our public parks are for everyone to use and we should all respect them and others using them. I use my local twice a day to work the dogs and when off lead I keep them under control , close by and in sight at all time and clean up after them. We as a family spent a lot of time making sure they are property trained so we can let them enjoy going off lead and be keep under our control. I'm tired of us responsible dogs owners who most of us are getting lumped in with the few irresponsible ones. It time the council went after the irresponsible ones and got dog wardens out there . Responsible dog owners and their dogs should not be victimised because of the bad ones. It's our town too and we pay our council taxes. So deserve the free use of our coastal line and public parks.

From: Sent: 29 August 2017 18:21 To: Environment Subject: Public Space protection orders

I am very concerned about this area of legislation, specifically in relation to the Dog on Leads (general provisions).

As a responsible dog owner, whose dogs are walked twice a day, to heel, without a lead in my village (including on highways and across the village green), I find the proposed restrictions to be ignorant and ill advised. The idea of a ‘one size fits all’ regulation is quite ridiculous and could even cause worse behaviour amongst dogs who are not trained on the lead, with the potential for accidents with the elderly being pulled over increasing.

Please can you let me know how I can keep up to date with developments?

Thank you.

From: Sent: 31 August 2017 11:48 To: Environment Subject: Dog Control Consultation.

Good Morning,

I have been reading about your proposed enhanced and revised control orders.

I notice that proposals are that dogs are banned from gated and fenced play areas. This would not apply to Martello Park in Felixstowe as it is neither fully fenced nor gated. It is probably one of the most heavily used play areas in Suffolk Coastal.

Should the new rules not include that dogs should be on a lead at all times in Martello Park? Including the area around the Martello Tower which is nearly as fouled as the common.

The reason I have been moved to write, is after hearing a trio of middle aged dog walkers on 29 August while I was sitting on a bench, I decided courtesy and common sense can no longer be relied on. The outcome was that they would not be following any of the new rules. The lady stated that “The only time I’m catching hold of my dog is if the kid looks scare when he’s jumping up". Which was met with a chorus of agreement. I have to say that if the lady’s large retriever, the mobility scooter drivers two Staffordshire Bull terriers or the guy in the wife beater t-shirt's dog (the sort that Bill Sykes in “Oliver” had) was jumping on me I would not be too comfortable. Yet the three owners were the sort that look blank eyed and slack jawed and say “he is just being friendly” or “He won’t do you any harm" as they jumped all over passers-by and their pets.

Frequently in Martello Park the people with the least control of their animals are the ones that do not have them on a lead. The same people who walk ahead and chose not to see their dogs foul. This has got to be one of the areas that child health is at it’s most threatened from loose dogs physically, mentally or through the risk of parasite infection. It also may be that a child running and screaming in the play areas, as they frequently do, scares a loose dog into reacting.

Since I inherited a dog last year, I walk through the park three times a day with the dog on a lead and it does not seem to affect her enjoyment. In anycase as 30 feet further through the park, dogs could be on the beach or promenade loose (in the unrestricted areas) the requirement for keeping dogs on leads in Martello Park would not be unneccesarily restrictive.

May I suggest that you add a restriction that dogs should be on a lead in all areas of Martello Park from the fences of the front elevation of the new houses to the sea defence wall.

Finally, the people who’s actions have made this consultation necessary will not care about any of the restrictions that you decide and commit to paper, unless they are enforced, do you actually have any resources to do so?

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Yours faithfully

From:

Sent: 03 September 2017 08:11 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Order

Dear Sir,

I would like to inform you of my household`s complete support for your proposed Public Space Protection Order to do with dogs.

Loose dogs can cause nasty accidents, lead to mess on verges and cause distress to all concerned,

Everyone I have spoken to about this supports it.

Yours sincerely

From:

Sent: 04 September 2017 10:53 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders

I wish to record my views and experiences with regards to dog fouling at Brackenbury, Old Felixstowe.

It appears wide spread practice, that between Cobbolds Point and the Dip, dog walkers allow their dogs to run free along the prom. and beach. Generally when the dog fouls its in full view of the owner and its dealt with.

How-ever when the dog runs off between and behind the beach huts, the owners do nothing more than call the dogs name!! They never venture to find out what is delaying the dog. We Know, we often see the evidence. Children do not only play on the beach !

The other thing I have observed. If one dog pees on the beach, then every other dog that passes within sniffing distance, thiers being considerably better than humans. Marks the same area. When the dogs owner is tired they go home, within a short while children come to play on the beach.

From:

Sent: 04 September 2017 13:46 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on Leads

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to “Suffolk Coastal proposes new rules to keep dogs on leads. This includes dogs on leads on Shingle Street as well as increased restrictions on walking on open land and pedestrian footways.

I used to live at Shingle Street many years ago. I went back last year. Never again! It wasn’t the dogs or dog owners who were the problem but all the foul garbage that was left on the tide line by HUMANS. I refuse to endanger the health of my dogs by taking them there ever again.

My major concern is your reference to “ increased restrictions on walking on open land and pedestrian footways.

I presume open land could refer to Sutton Heath on which I have been walking my dogs since 1979. Apart from the restrictions with regard to keeping dogs on short leads during the ground bird nesting season which I and the hundreds of other dog walkers obey, our dogs are free to run around off the lead, socialize with each other and play chase.

If you remember, it was the SCDC which ran a survey prior to the above restrictions, by monitoring for one year the number of cars which visited the South Car Park i.e. on the Sutton Road. It numbered 19,000 with well over 90% being dog walkers. Dog lovers from as far away as Ipswich came, and still come, to Sutton Heath to allow their dogs to be walked off the lead. God forbid our dogs should lose that freedom.

God forbid the owners shouuld lose the joy of meeting other dog owners with off-lead dogs and having a good gossip while we stroll along with our dogs playing around us.

I would like you to consider the following and I use myself as an example. I have owned dogs for over 60 years. I usually have a minimum of three and often of varying ages. At present I have a 13 year old black labrador, an 8 year old chocolate labrador and a 4 year old beagle/fox terrier mix. All trained to be social with other dogs and people. If I had to walk my dogs on a lead at what speed do I walk?

Do I slow my pace to suit the older dog which means the younger ones can only walk and not trot? Or do I walk fast in order to suit the younger ones but by doing so am forced to drag the poor older one at a speed she is incapable of?

Problem two. Have any of you lot attempted to use a doggy bag one-handed while restraining 3 leashed dogs with the other?

Problem three. My chocolate labrador will only poop in deep undergrowth a minimum of 20 to 30 ft. away from a path. No I don’t pick his up as it would probably take me 20 minutes to find it amongst gorse bushes, waist high bracken or scrub. No-one wades through that lot anyway so I leave it for Mother Nature. He refuses to poop if he’s close to a path or thinks he is being watched.

Problem four: If I had to keep my dogs on a lead I would have to double the the walk time from one hour to two hours in order for them to get sufficient exercise to keep them healthy. They need to run either by playing with other dogs or chasing each other.

Professional Dog Walkers. I know three of them. They walk about 5 dogs at one time. Various breeds and various ages. Once again consider the difficulty of bagging up poops one handed while restraining FIVE leashed dogs with the other. Sutton Heath is a Paradise for dog walkers. Well over 96% walk their dogs off the lead as I do mine but we carry leads. If we see someone we don’t recognise approaching with a dog or dogs on leads we automatically leash ours up and call out “mine are friendly”.

If the answer floats back “so are mine” we remove the leads and allow the dogs to introduce themselves. We owners do the same. Lots of the younger dogs invite each other to play and it is wonderful watching them chase around in great circles until they run out of puff. It’s a great way for us humans to make new friends too.

In all the years I have been walking on Sutton Heath or in the nearby forests the 3 main reasons for those who keep their dogs leashed are: it is inclined to run off and won’t come back; it’s a rescue and is nervous of other dogs; my dog doesn’t like other dogs. In these cases we respect that owner and our respective dogs remain on the lead until we have safely passed.

Thank you for wading through this lot.

Sincerely,

Bromeswell,

From:

Sent: 04 September 2017 17:34 To: Environment Subject: Changes to dog controls

I agree totally with improving requirements on dog owners to keep their dogs under control and to clean up after them. Keeping dogs on leads in the areas you suggest will help with safety and hygiene. There has been an increase in the number of dogs that are kept as pets and controls need to be improved to cope with this.

Responsible dog owners already ensure that their dogs are well-behaved but they often do not realise the way birds (especially nesting birds) can be upset by dogs. Increasing areas where birds are safe can only be a good thing.

Regards

Saxmundham

IP17 1DT

-----Original Message-----

From:

Sent: 04 September 2017 20:19 To: Environment

Cc:

Subject: Dog Walking at Landguard Common and other places.

PROPOSED DOG RESTRICTIONS AT LANDGUARD COMMON.

I am against these draft proposals as:-

1)They will prevent responsible owners from exercising their pets naturally.

2)This is common land for the benefit of all, and you have no legislative rights to dictate who can and who cannot use this land, and for what purpose.

3) If this is to alleviate the dog mess problem it will only push it elsewhere.

4) Who is going to pay for the cost of policing your proposals?

5) We are told by our GP’s that dog walking is an important exercise, thus NHS costs will increase.

6) Once again a badly thought out idea, by people who do not use the facility.

……………………………………..

As an aside, of greater benefit to Landguard Common would be MORE and BIGGER litter bins.

You seem intent on spoiling people’s enjoyment, just as you have done by allowing cycling on the Promenade. There are near misses every day. I can guarantee someone will get seriously injured or even killed through this ill-conceived idea.

From:

Sent: 04 September 2017 21:46 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation

Good Evening,

I am a dog owner within Suffolk Coastal and the proposed changes make a lot of sense. Fully supported.

Kind regards

From:

Sent: 05 September 2017 17:21 To: Environment Subject: PSPO

Normally I walk my dog in the forest, woods and heathland, and he normally backs into undergrowth before doing his business, all away from formal or informal tracks and footpaths. As far as I understand the proposals would require me clear up regardless, and therefore I would either have to stop him before he starts or I would have to carry shears with me to cut back the undergrowth and armoured gloves so as not to injure myself. The National Trust encourages dog walkers to scrape leaf litter over dogs mess away from paths and tracks, or bag and carry away, and this is a very sensible approach, which allows the dog mess to decompose and does not encourage the use of plastic. It seems to me and every dog owner that I have spoken to that SCDC will not enforce the current bylaws etc, as these unlikely to generate revenue, but the current proposals will.

With regard to Shingle Street, as a former volunteer worker for the RSPB, SWT and the BTO I understand the need to protect ground nesting birds, but with the volume of people walking over the beach, unless the areas are fenced in, banning dogs would be pointless. I always walk my dog on the lead until I get to the tide line and then he is free to swim, so as far as I can understand he will no longer be allowed to swim anywhere between the Ore and the Deben.

I look forward to your answers.

Regards

From: Sent: 07 September 2017 09:45 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders

I am astounded by the documents that I have just read about dogs being kept on leads.

Whilst I understand restrictions for places where there are birds nesting I struggle to comprehend the need to place draconian restrictions suggested regarding dogs on leads in designated places, this smacks of someone trying to target a specific problem using a sledgehammer rather than common sense.

I guess a few people made a complaint and this proposal came about from it, one or two people probably created a problem with their dogs and now all dog owners in the area have to suffer – that’s wrong and I want to object.

To me a similar thing would be to ban all men over the age of 65 from driving because two men over 65 had an accident. We eliminate the potential of another 65 plus male causing an accident but make everyone male over 65 suffer because of the two.

This proposal goes too far.

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 07 September 2017 08:48 To: Environment Subject: PSPO - Landguard Nature Reserve & Dog Fouling

PSPO – LANDGUARD NATURE RESERVE

The vast increase in the number and the persistent nature of dogs off leads on the nature reserve has had a disastrous effect on the wildlife using this globally important LNR. Ground nesting birds have been devastated with, for example, iconic species such as Little Tern, Skylark & Meadow Pipit lost as breeding birds this century. Numbers of migrant birds using the area as a stop over site on migration has declined with many of those that do stop over being forced to depart within a few hours of dawn due to disturbance from poorly supervised dogs. In addition to the effect on the wildlife this has an extremely detrimental effect on the quality of life and the mental health of those people who use the site.

At quiet times responsible dog owners can enjoy peace & tranquility without being bothered by the behaviour of those who do not keep their pets under control on a lead. Families & children can enjoy the site in the knowledge that they will not be bothered by unruly dogs. Unfortunately at present nuisance dogs out of control are currently running into double figures most days peaking at 30 – 50 per day on Sundays & Bank Holidays. This ruins the visitor experience.

The rest of the prohibitions in the Schedule are similar to existing byelaws apart from the important addition of drones. Drones are not only bird scarers but the way they are being used extremely annoying and potentially dangerous to persons in the area. It is not unusual to see drones being flown more like a jet fighter at vast speeds back and forth over the site with no consideration for anyone else.

PSPO – DOG FOULING

At Landguard Nature Reserve the vast majority of dog owners clear up after their pets. Some only do it when other dog walkers are around due to peer pressure and if they think no one is watching they walk off and leave it. Many regular dog walkers are known to clear up the mess left by others which they should not have to do. Up to 30 bags of discarded dog mess in bags is picked up on a daily basis as irresponsible dog owners having cleared up after their pet discreetly drop the bags on the ground, lob them under bushes or sling them between the groynes on the beach when no one is watching. This anti-social behaviour blights the lives of visitors to the site including the responsible dog owners. An additional issue is nutrient enrichment of the soil from dog mess which is altering the botany on parts of the site.

Landguard Conservation Trust (registered charity) supports these applications to help protect and conserve this internationally important site for wildlife and to improve the quality of life and the visitor experience of those that utilise the site.

Landguard Conservation Trust, Landguard Bird Observatory, View Point Road, Felixstowe, Suffolk IP11 8TW

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 07 September 2017 08:29 To: Environment Subject: proposed new dog restriction order

The proposal that dogs should be on leads at all times on all roads and verges is heavy-handed, unnecessary, impossible to police, a mis-use of local authority power and can only have been proposed by individuals who do not understand the way people live in country areas.

Kelsale

From:

Sent: 07 September 2017 11:06 To: Environment Subject: New Public Space Protection Orders

I am writing in support of amending/tightening controls on dogs in public spaces in Suffolk Coastal.

Many dog owners exercise no control over their dogs on roads/footpaths and children's play areas and if challenged, are aggressive and abusive.

In common with many people I've been verbally assaulted and sworn at many times by people who think it's perfectly all right for their dog to bound up and knock small children off their feet (this has hapened to me on more than one occasion), to aggressively approach and jump up at you on a public footpath, causing fear and damaging, dirtying clothes, not to mention failing to clear up after their animal. Sizewell beach, a beautiful stretch of coastline, is virtually unuseable because of the amount of dog mess and out of control dogs there.

I do not believe dogs should be allowed off a short lead in any public place, although quite how you would enforce this I do not know. I have frequently politely challenged dog owners walking their animals off the lead in places where they are already not supposed to be and am always met with the same obnoxious and aggressive response.

IP164JA

From:

Sent: 07 September 2017 13:22 To: Environment Subject: Public Consultation

Never, ever have I ever heard anything so ludicrous as to ban people walking their dogs off the lead.

I walk my working cocker spaniel in Bury St Edmunds every day. He is off the lead. He needs exercising.

Your proposals to fine owners who have their dogs off a lead/leash, is ridiculous. And unfair on the dogs who are exercising and enjoying the freedom.

I am disgusted that this has even been given public money to get to a consultation stage.

Completely understand that dog fouling is an offence, and anyone who doesn't clear up after their dog should be fined (heavily).

Dogs that are not under control or that are violent/unfriendly, these too should be tackled and fined where appropriate.

But your every day dog owner/dog walker should not be penalised for enjoying a walk with their four legged friend.

I officially oppose this consultation and I don't even walk that often in the area being consulted on.

Create areas of the beach that are dog free zones, as they do in West Runton in North Norfolk. But give good spirited dog owners some slack, we train our pets and ensure the environment that we walk them in is clean and safe for others. We are not all irresponsible and to bring in such dreadful proposals is preposterous.

I would like immediate further information on this please before a decision you make affects the well being, and lives of dogs and their owners.

You clearly are not (good, responsible) dog owners yourselves to even suggest such a policy.

Utterly outraged,

Regards

From:

Sent: 07 September 2017 10:14 To:

Subject: PROPOSED PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDER

I wish to comment on the above. Easton Harriers Hunt based in Easton, we feel that the order in its present form would bring our organisation to a close. We currently exercise our hounds on the roads round Easton 6 days a week and when we trail hunt we have to travel short distances on all types of road. We suggest that an exemption for sporting and working dogs would allow us to continue and make it easier for farm dogs and gun dogs to do their job. If you wish for any further information or would like to see how our hounds conduct themselves on a road please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

From:

Sent: 07 September 2017 14:28 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation

Dear SCDC,

With regard to the proposed new controls on Dogs on Leads and restrictions on access to Felixstowe and Aldeburgh beaches, Landguard Point and Shingle Street, I’d make the following observations:

Most of the proposals seem reasonable to me – I own two dogs and take them bird watching with me. I would not dream of allowing them to run around hunting where there are birds eggs, I know they’ll eat eggs and small mammals they find in hedges and grassland on my own property, so in Nature areas or near livestock we always keep leads on, to be on the safe side.

I am strongly in favour of more enforcement of dog fouling legislation. I don’t want to walk in the stuff any more than anyone else does! I’ve watched other dogs owners (not many, but the same people must be doing this every day) walk straight across Christchurch Park in Ipswich, ignoring their dogs, which are going to the toilet behind them. It’s disgraceful and I hate visiting some places in case people think I’m to blame for what other people have left behind. So, please don’t let the existing rules on fouling just be words, please appoint wardens to ENFORCE them. I’m happy to prove I’ve got poop bags!

The only thing I disagree with is the wording under Dogs on Lead that says “allowing dogs in the Restricted Area whilst not on a lead and under close control (“the Activity”) has a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality”. It doesn’t, unless irresponsible owners allow their dogs to be out of control or to foul the environment. Dogs are beneficial to people in so many ways. I regularly have children and elderly people approach me to meet my dogs, both they and the dogs get great pleasure from the interaction. I once met a whole group of toddlers from the local play school who clustered around my delighted Labrador to pet her. Dogs bring joy into life.

Yours faithfully,

From: Sent: 07 September 2017 15:14 To: Environment Subject: Consultation on Dogs on Leads

I strongly support all the schedule clauses in your Proposed Public Space Protection Order as I find being approached by a dog off a lead very horrible - particularly if the dog runs at me, sniffs around me, or heaven forbid licks or jumps up. Dog owners generally fail to understand how anyone could find these things offensive. But I find them as bad if it were a human doing it! Worse really because you know with a dog every time it is a quite likely, not some remote possibility. They (the owners, and quite probably the dogs) would certainly not like it if I did any of these things to them!

Why does clause 4 have the words "when in use as such" at the end? If I'm on a sports field I don't want to be bothered by a dog off a lead, and I don't want the dog to be free to run around and crap where it likes, just because no-one is actually playing a sport at that moment.

From: ] Sent: 07 September 2017 17:30 To: Environment Subject: Proposed changes to dog controls.

I fully agree with the proposed changes to dog controls. I have encountered dogs running around, owners not anywhere to be seen at areas where adults and children play/walk.

There is nothing worse than seeing dog faeces that has not been cleaned up by owners.

Dogs are unpredictable and should be kept on leads in such areas as proposed.

From: Sent: 07 September 2017 19:16 To: [email protected] Subject: Dogs

Hi,

Having just read about new dog laws you are trying to implement with regards to keeping dogs on lead. It beggars believe that you have to time and resources to implement or police such daft enforcements. Have you got nothing better to do. Why is it that it is always the dog people who are targeted? People have been walking dogs for years with little or no trouble. You claim to want to encourage tourism is this area. How are you going to do that by banning dogs. The majority of people who come to this area probably have a dog. They banned them from the Suffolk Show for a few years and where did that get them, a huge reduction in people going to the show, so what have they had to do but revoke it. How about you banning people keeping cats who come and dig up your garden and pooh all over the place, are they to be kept on leads? Why can't you have specific dog walks as like bridle ways then people who want to walk in dog free zone keep away from these areas. I personally would rather you banned bicycles they cause me far more trouble riding on footpaths and being allowed to race on the public highway and being abusive while doing it. What other sport would be allowed to race on our roads? Come on council get a life.

From:

Sent: 07 September 2017 22:36 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads proposal

Sirs,

I believe your proposal to enforce dogs on leads at all times on all public thoroughfares to be draconian and unfair to responsible dog owners. The simple fact is that irresponsible owners will merely ignore the law whilst honest law abiding dog owners will feel yet more restricted and unable to enjoy the company of family members. There is already sufficient law to deal with dog fouling, unruly dogs and dangerous dogs.

In my particular case, I am disabled but do not receive benefits. I walk my extremely well behaved dog three times a day, once to a local field for good exercise, other times just to stretch his legs. It is not practical to use a disabled scooter and keep him on a lead. for safety reasons. He is therefore trained to follow the scooter. Your restrictions will now mean six additional car journeys for me at cost to drive to an area where my dog can exercise each day (three each way) but as I cannot transport my scooter, his walks will be shorter in length. As I walk him very early in the morning and late at night, this will also cause disturbance to neighbours with cars starting and manoevering with opening and closing of doors when now there is only a quiet disablility scooter.

Disobedient dog owners will still ignore the law or use flexible extending leads that make no difference to whether the animal is on or off the lead in the first place.

I urge you not to bring in this legislation which would make Suffolk Coastal a dog unfriendly place to residents and tourists alike.

Yours faithfully

From:

Sent: 08 September 2017 09:17 To: Environment Subject: Dog controls

We would like to "have our say" on your proposed changes to dog controls.

As keen bird watchers we are in favour of any legislation that will tighten controls of dogs. In many places that we walk, Sutton and Hollesley Heaths, Alton Water and Landguard Nature Reserve are a few examples, there are notices advising of dog controls. These are ignored by many dog owners. In some of these places, Alton Water is a prime example, it would be rare to see the instructions being followed at all. We are well aware of the argument that the majority of owners abide by the rules but there are so many dog walkers nowadays that even a small minority represents a very large number.

We know that in most of the places we have mentioned there would be no changes to the rules but we use them to indicate why we would support any tightening of legislation of dog controls, albeit we think that enforcement of the rules will be very difficult, given that we are sure that a large number of dog owners will be against the plans and ignore them. In some places, Levington Lagoon for example, signs advising that dogs should be kept on a lead have been removed. This, we think, shows the problems that you will face in getting people to abide by any new rules that you introduce, however well-intentioned.

Felixstowe

From: Sent: 08 September 2017 17:04 To: Environment Subject: Mandatory dog lead requirements

Sir

Having read the article in the East Anglian Daily Times on the above subject I can only see the 'Nanny State' leaping into action once more. Instead of prosecuting the dog owners who do not control their dogs and who do not clean up after them why not divert some resources to prosecuting the people who leave our public places in such a mess i.e. Langer Park? Councillor has admirably distributed sums to the tune of £1000 for CCTV at Clifflands Car Park and £1354 for recumbent bicycles for the youth project. I'm sure the council will get some return on that! A knee jerk reaction to a small problem caused by a very small minority. How very predictable; tar everyone with the same brush instead of employing some joined-up thinking and going for the offenders. If it is such a problem why not get the Police involved? No, thought not.

Yours sincerely

Trimley

8 September 2017

From: Sent: 08 September 2017 21:41 To: Environment Subject: Dogs

Dogs need to run and play, not just walk on a lead. On our quiet country roads and footpaths it would be madness not to let them off if they are under control and their mess picked up which I believe the vast majority do, in the countryside

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 09 September 2017 10:31 To: Environment Subject: PSPO - dog control

Good morning,

In relation to your PSPO for dogs on beaches, do you have a draft copy of the order please? I am particularly interested in the changes to the beach at Felixstowe.

Many thanks,

From: Sent: 10 September 2017 08:33 To: Environment Subject: PSPO 2017/15 - Dogs on leads south of Shingle Street

Dear SCDC,

Hollesley Parish Council would like to register their support for this draft order.

Kind regards,

Clerk to Hollesley Parish Council

Web Site: http://hollesley.suffolk.cloud/

From: Sent: 10 September 2017 11:07 To: Environment Subject: Proposed restrictions on dogs

Sirs,

I, like a large proportion of responsible dog owners, regret and resent those that do not clear up after their pets and would support wholeheartedly measures to deter such behaviour.

However the proposed restrictions target both the irresponsible and responsible owners alike.

There are a number of footpaths and green spaces which provide a valuable service to dog walkers, particularly those who through age or disability are unable to travel further afield to walk their pets. A lot of these areas are provided with bins for the disposal of dog waste and any measure to encourage their use would be welcome.

To apply a blanket ban on walking dogs off their leads on any green space or footpath (as opposed to roadside verge or pavement) would cause a good deal of resentment among responsible dog owners of which there must be large numbers in this district.

Yours

Woodbridge

From: Sent: 10 September 2017 14:50 To: Environment Subject: RE: Public Space Protection Orders Consultation

To whom it may concern:

As an owner of two well behaved dogs I am upset that Suffolk Coastal Council has decided to ban dogs from Felixstowe beaches and Landguard point. I am an Ipswich resident who has visited Felixstowe every week to exercise my dogs and whilst I can understand that it is undesirable to have dogs in a nature reserve (also misbehaving unsupervised children who I have seen disturbing nesting areas) I do not understand why a complete ban is necessary. Surely there could be an area that families can enjoy walking their well behaved dogs off leash along the coast. Yes, deal with misbehaving dogs and their owners of which there is already legislation to deal with them but do not ban those who have done no wrong!

As a Nurse who actively promotes healthy living and exercise, I am aware that owning a dog and taking them for a walk is very beneficial for both physical and mental health – surely the council is aware that we have a growing problem with a sedentary lifestyle and banning certain groups from enjoying exercise along the coast is detrimental to health.

I also completely understand that dog fouling is a nuisance and that people who do not clear up after their dogs should be prosecuted as should parents who leave dirty and festering nappies and rubbish on the beach. Please could we have equal treatment for antisocial littering and behaviour as it seems that only dog owners are being targeted.

Having enjoyed walking my dogs along the coast my usual practice is to enjoy shopping and visiting restaurants in Felixstowe, now I will have no cause to come and spend my money here as will lots of other town resident dog owners who regularly meet up in Felixstowe for socialisation in cafes having enjoyed their walks.

If you would like to have any further of my thoughts on this matter please don’t hesitate to contact me,

Yours Sincerely,

From: Sent: 10 September 2017 16:27 To: Environment Subject: PSPO consultation

As a Felixstowe resident and Airbnb host, I am unhappy about the proposed changes to legislation regarding restrictions to the exercising and walking of dogs in Felixstowe.

The use of PSPOs to deal with problem dog owners seems to me a lazy approach - targeting all dog owners (both residents and visitors) instead of dealing with those who cause problems.

I does feel as if these proposals want to specifically persecute dog owners, when there is significant anti-social behaviour from others using public spaces, including those fishing on the beach – yet there are no proposals to deal with this.

I am specifically concerned with the new ‘dogs on leads’ proposals – it is very restrictive and also confusing as it is not clear where some areas are either in or out of the restriction zone (for example the promenade, footpath to Felixstowe Ferry, Eastwood Ho etc.)

I am worried about the damage it will do to Felixstowe. The town is thriving at the moment. We are increasingly getting visitors from all over the country, who have heard that Felixstowe is definitely a place worth visiting – there is a sense that the town is ‘on the up’. The sort of bad publicity being generated by this consultation – and a feeling that Felixstowe is ‘anti-dog’ will be damaging. We already have a dog free zone on the beach, and this should be sufficient. Many families come on holiday with their family pet and they should feel welcome in Felixstowe, not persecuted.

Finally, there is hard evidence provided by the Kennel Club of Great Britain, about why these blanket bans are bad – I am sure you have already looked at their report, but I have attached it as it summarises my thoughts on your current consultation.

With regards

Felixstowe

Suffolk

From: Sent: 10 September 2017 18:32 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation

PSPO Consultation Team

I have read through the proposed changes and agree with the increased controls on dogs in public places. Most of these controls are just common sense.

I do however feel there must be some areas to exercise dogs off lead, an important part of keeping dogs happy and healthy. Plus providing exercise for dog owners too.

I would like to see the north beach and promenade (Brackenbury Cliff end of the beach) or part there of, to continue to be a place dogs are walked off lead.

The Grove and Eastwood Ho is also a place that dogs are exercised off lead, as football is no longer being played there, this could continue.

There will always be the few people who don't clean up after their dogs and those that don't control their animals.

I think it would be sad that those of us who do behave considerately should be penalised due to a few antisocial dog owners.

Thank you for this opportunity to express my view.

Yours faithfully,

From: Sent: 10 September 2017 20:43 To: Environment Subject: Public space protection orders

I wish my views to be noted on the new proposed public space protection orders. I am in thorough agreement with the majority of the proposals. I disagree with the blanket provision of dogs must be on leads on all highways. Suffolk Coastal is a rural area with a lot of small lanes that are 1 car wide. I have 2 dogs; a puppy that is lead walked and a 11 yr old Labrador that walks to heel, goes up on the bank and waits when told and who has only been put on a lead where people are around, i.e. Town, country shows, areas with a lot of people about.

I don't think it's reasonable to include country lanes as a lot of people walk their dogs along these lanes and have done so for many years and haven't caused traffic accidents or danger to other people. I think you need to specify what highways dogs need to go on leads for, as some lanes rarely see a car go down them and it would be unfair to punish people and their dogs by making it a rule for dogs to go on leads on these lanes.

I take great pride that I can walk with my dog and be confident he isn't going to cause an accident and will be well behaved and I'm sure my dog is much happier not having a lead hanging off him for the majority of his walk as the footpaths are quite a distance from our house.

Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 11 September 2017 14:26 To: Environment Subject: Dog controls in Felixstowe Area

Dear Mr. Gallant, We agree with the proposed dog controls. But our question is how can you inforce these proposals? If dog owners will not pick their dogs pooh, how will the authorities know who they are. From dog lovers, Ferry Road, Felixstowe, IP11 9RU Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 12 September 2017 17:33 To: Environment Subject: Dog controls

Dear sir, I read the article on dog controls in Living in Felixstowe magazine today, and seems to think that legislation is not necessary and we are in danger of becoming a Nanny state. We see what happens when the law is relaxed in regards to car parking in the town. With no one to enforce the laws, restrictions such as yellow lines and half hour parking are widely ignored. Relax enforcement of the dog laws and they will soon be running out of control. If all residents were careful and considerate then we wouldn't need rules. Some people, like myself, actually don't think dogs are the best part of creation. Although the owner may say it won't bite, they really mean it won't bite them because that is all they can actually know for sure. Let them enjoy their animals but leave me to enjoy the beach and parks as well without having dogs running towards me barking. Felixstowe

From: Sent: 12 September 2017 07:54 To: Subject: Dog Control Consultation

Dear

Just to let you know the meeting appeared to go well with in attendance it really helped that our Ward member was in attendance.

I feel I would just like to give a view on the understanding that appeared to feel that would be taken on board to address a working pack of hounds, he referred to the consideration that would be given to open out from working hound packs to include working and sporting dogs. I own two dogs in these categories and would never have them off lead when on roads, neither are working to the gun and are pets. If people felt that they could walk dogs off lead on roads etc because of their breed this could cause problems. There is also the hare coursing illegal activities whose dogs fall into the hound category.

These are just my thoughts and observations regarding how to make sure legislation allows legal working packs of hounds to operate, and that perhaps they should be specifically approached.

with my best wishes

From: Sent: 11 September 2017 17:03 To: Environment Subject: Changes in Dog Controls

Thank you for inviting comments on the proposed changes in dog controls. Overall I am in agreement with the controls as they protect birds and help young children enjoy the sandy beaches. I would not be in favour of any of these restrictions being imposed on the beaches from the steps from Golf Road to Old Felixstowe Ferry. As a daily dog walker along that stretch, I rarely meet irresponsible dog owners & the dogs enjoy the freedom of being off- lead. There are getting to be fewer and fewer places where this can happen safely and I would appreciate you giving consideration to my comments.

Thank you, Felixstowe IP11 9HW

From:

Sent: 11 September 2017 17:28 To: Environment Subject: PSPO CONSULTATION

Via email – 11 th September 2017

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Shingle Street Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) Consultation

I should start by saying that I fully support restrictions for dogs that apply to popular tourist beaches such as Aldeburgh and Felixstowe during the summer. I similarly support restrictions on dogs in areas provided specifically for children.

I am writing in connection with the proposed PSPO for the Shingle Street area. Your website suggests that “this is a new proposal to protect ground nesting birds”. I fully understand the desire to protect birds that may choose to nest in this area but I am not convinced that a PSPO is a proportionate response or can be justified on legal grounds.

I should say that in the absence of any evidence being made available by SCDC on its website to justify this proposal it is rather difficult to make an informed response. The evidence to support this PSPO might be overwhelming – I have no way of knowing. As things stand I can only base my judgement on the information that has been made available to me. The only incident that I am aware of in this area is one that apparently occurred last year (2016). My understanding is that a person (a lady I believe) witnessed a dog killing some young avocet chicks. This was reported locally in our ‘Village Voices’ magazine but not by someone who actually witnessed the incident and it is therefore hearsay.

I have reproduced below the section from the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which relates to the power to make orders . It states: states:

(1) A local authority may make a public spaces protection order if satisfied on reasonable grounds that two conditions are met.

(2) The first condition is that—

(a) activities carried on in a public place within the authority’s area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or

(b) it is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place within that area and that they will have such an effect.

(3) The second condition is that the effect, or likely effect, of the activities—

(a) is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature,

(b) is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and

The Government also produced statutory guidance for the Act. In its introduction it says, “Anti-social behaviour is a broad term used to describe the day-to-day incidents of crime, nuisance and disorder that make many people’s lives a misery – from litter and vandalism, to public drunkenness or aggressive dogs, to noisy or abusive neighbours.”

The associated ‘flow-chart’ in the statutory guidance notes that the anti-social “behaviour has, or is likely to have a detrimental effect on the local community”. Above, I have underlined the parts that appear relevant to this case. I would make two observations.

Firstly, this legislation was created to prevent anti-social behaviour that affects people – not to protect birds. Many birds, such as the avocet, are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, meaning that it is already an offence to harm them or disturb them during the breeding season (this information has been taken from the RSPB’s website).

The second point I would make is that there appears to be no evidence to show that there is a persistent problem. I am not aware of any recurrence of the alleged 2016 incident. No information has been made public to show what, if any, alternatives have been tried or considered before arriving at this proposal.

As I stated at the outset, it may be the case that SCDC has evidence of a persistent problem in the area that affects local people. If this is the case then I would probably support the proposal. As things stand, however, based on the information available and SCDCs stated aim of protecting birds I do not see how this PSPO can be justified.

Yours faithfully,

From:

Sent: 12 September 2017 07:45 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation

I believe the new proposals do not go far enough.

Dogs should be kept on a lead at all public spaces including all beaches and parks, there of course should be certain spaces designated for dog owners to allow dogs off the lead, but these should be well away from areas where the public in general are likely to gather.

Whilst most dog owners are responsible and caring there are still a few who do not cleanup after there dogs have fouled. There are still a few dog owners who allow there dogs to jump up at people and seemingly have no control over them causing trauma to small children. I have seen people picnicking only for a dog off the leash to run over to them and tramp all over totally oblivious or ignored by the owner of the dog.

Until all dog owners are responsible and accountable stricter controls should be put in place and enforced with clear signage .

From: Sent: 12 September 2017 10:16 To: Environment Subject: changes to dog controls

Hello

I am writing as concerned about dogs having to be on leads on sports grounds - I often walk my dogs over the Grove Playing Frield in Old Felixstowe / Eastward Ho There are football pitches here - would this mean dogs would have to be on leads whilst matches were under way?

Many thanks

From: Sent: 12 September 2017 10:51 To: Environment Subject: Changes to dog controls in East Suffolk

Hello, I strongly support the proposed changes to dog controls in East Suffolk, particularly those that help to protect the shingle habitat. The increase in the popularity of the Suffolk coastline has made it a destination of choice for dog owners with dogs being allowed off the leash on our beaches to the detriment of sensitive habitats including bird nesting and feeding sites. As has been mentioned, many dog owners are responsible but there are sufficient who are not to create a real problem. I have noticed an increase in fouling on the beaches and promenades; this is simply not compatible with other beach use and we are constantly having to warn our grandson to be wary. I feel that the dog free beach areas and times need to be extended. Of course by-laws are ineffective without enforcement; a few Fixed Penalty Notices for dog (and litter) offences would work wonders! Felixstowe.

From:

Sent: 12 September 2017 14:45 To: Environment Subject: dog bans

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have heard recently that the planning laws for dogs on beaches is going to be changed.

With regard to Felixstowe, is the beach by the Manor Terrace car park going to be restricted? I have heard differing views on this and would like clarification on this point. Also, would dogs be allowed to be 'off lead' on the land immediately behind this beach?

I fully support dogs on leads at Landguard Point Bird Reserve and other wild life sensitive places. But a blanket ban of dogs not allowed on accessible beaches is harsh. What about elderly people with their grandchildren? Not being allowed to sit on the sand and enjoy the sun at places that can be easily reached is sad.

We are not all young, fit and able, please remember that. Elderly people are also the ones that vote!!!

I look forward to your reply regarding the Manor Terrace beach access for dogs of lead.

Yours sincerely,

Copdock. IP8 3LF

From:

Sent: 12 September 2017 18:43 To: Environment Subject: PSPO - dogs on leads

Sir/Madam

With regard to your consultation on PSPO I have the following comments to make:

I believe it is only the right thing to do where it protects the nesting birds and/or wildlife - such as at Shingle Street etc.

I believe it is also right to exclude dogs from children's play areas - where they are designated areas enclosed by fencing. (In fact, I thought this was already the case). Many play parks are NOT enclosed though, and therefore a blanket ban on these areas is an inadequate alternative to actually providing fencing around the play equipment (Leiston park such an example). The fencing makes it clear where dogs are excluded from, but it also adds security for the children and parents enjoying the equipment.

However, a general blanket ban of exercising dogs off leads is excessively heavy handed and indeed un-policable. As the regulations stand, there is not enough enforcement of anti-fouling measures (Saxmundham memorial field is my case in point) and dog fouling itself is by far the anti-social factor. Owners that are intent on ignoring/leaving the poo their dog leaves will carry on doing so whether the dog is on a lead or not.

This protection order would also lead to a rise in dog owners using extending leads, which fail in every way to actually exercise control over a dog - plus actually do it harm as it has been able to build up more speed before coming to a shuddering stop when the lead length is exhausted - though I recognise the intent of this PSPO is not the protection of dogs!

I'm sure I don't need to point out, that the other favourite domesticated animal, the Cat, is rather prolific in both distributing its poo across the community and also rather adept at killing wildlife - song birds, amphibians, rodents, the lot. With this comparison in mind, the Cat owner has no obligation whatsoever to control their animal, and yet tightening regulations on dog owners does nothing to address this imbalance.

Saxmundham

From:

Sent: 13 September 2017 13:02 To:

Subject: Re: dog bans

Dear ,

Thank you for your speedy reply, much appreciated.

To clarify a little more, is the area to the south of Manor Terrace going to be affected by this proposed order? At present dogs can go of the lead. It is a little difficult to tell from the map, and I am assuming this will be so and dogs will have to be on fixed leads all the time. Also, when will this proposed order be operational?

Another query; on the Felixstowe map it doesn't show the area by the Fludyers pub. Is dog access to the beach restricted here or not? Can you walk with your dog along the seashore/sea defences towards Cobbolds Point and old Felixstowe or not?

Thank you for your help, as what one hears is rather like Chinese whispers!

Regards

From: Sent: 13 September 2017 14:41 To: Environment Subject: Extension of dog exclusion areas

As responsible dog owners who exercise our dog at Aldeburgh and Felixstowe we wish to object to the proposal to extend the total exclusion areas for dogs on these beaches.This will lead to a loss of amenity for us and local businesses will suffer from a fall in trade. Kesgrave Suffolk.

From:

Sent: 13 September 2017 15:33 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders - Suffolk Coastal

Dear Sir/Madam

Re dogs on leads proposal

I oppose your proposals on this issue. (The few owners whose dogs are out of control should be addressed without the need for this Order). Your proposal would subject a majority of dog owners to an effective penalty for the behaviour of a vast minority of irresponsible owners. A sceptical person could argue that the fixed penalty fee of £80 is a money-making exercise.

It is the neurotic and irresponsible owners of dogs that need to be effectively targeted – surely you would be better placed to shut-down the puppy farms and non-professional breeders from selling to owners who basically have not got a clue and never will have. Or who worse still enjoy tormenting and creating a violent or petrified image/animal.

As stated I oppose your proposals. A well-trained dog with relevant exercise and a responsible home should not be subject to this board-sweep PSPO.

Yours faithfully LEISTON Suffolk IP16 4AX

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 13 September 2017 17:18 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders - dogs

Dear Sirs

I would like to add my support to the proposals to strengthen dog control in Suffolk Coastal.

Re Dogs in children’s play areas - I fully support this proposal.

Re Dog fouling - I fully support this proposal.

Re Exclusion of dogs from Aldeburgh Beach - I am an Aldeburgh resident and do not feel these proposal go far enough. The Restricted Area on the shingle beach should be extended north to the point to an imaginary line running perpendicular with the old ‘ Sluice Cottage’ at Grid Reference TM4675 5825. This is an SSSI and AONB area and whilst the RSPB rope off this area to try and prevent pedestrians damaging the flora, this fencing does not stop dogs entering and causing damage.

I also feel that there should be a requirement for dogs to be on a lead from Market Cross Place down to the above mentioned perpendicular line on the land known as the Haven. This area has the main town car park and the Haven is heavily used by pedestrians and cyclists to whom unleashed dogs create a risk. Its protected environmental status should also be recognised by insisting that dogs be on a lead at all times.

I hope you will be successful in implementing these restrictions which are long overdue.

Regards

Aldeburgh IP15 5BA

From: Sent: 13 September 2017 18:17 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Order - Landguard Point

Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to add my strong support for the proposed PSPO for Landguard Point. I believe the proposed restrictions on dog walking will improve the fortunes of threatened ground-nesting birds and other components of the SSSI.

Yours faithfully Brundall Norfolk NR13 5SD

From: Sent: 14 September 2017 08:41 To: Environment Subject: PSPO relating to Dogs in public areas

As long-standing Felixstowe dog owners, in principle we would agree to the proposals. However, as always the question remains 'how do you propose to police it'? You make the point that most of these regulations are already in place, so how will changing the designation of these laws make any difference? How is a PSPO any better than the existing laws already in place? Our other area of concern is, what is the precise 'slight' change to the designated area on Felixstowe beach? Is this going to set yet another precedent for future restrictive creep for mainly responsible dog walkers? Yours Faithfully,

From:

Sent: 13 September 2017 21:58 To: Environment Subject: Revoke proposal - Public Space Protection Order - Dogs on Leads

I am writing to state I reject schedule 4.

The restrictions on beaches is already enough but to extend this to all large areas is ridiculous.

How and where do you expect a dog to be exercised properly whilst remaining on a lead? A dog needs to be able to stretch its legs off a lead for its health and my responsibility as a dog owner to look after it.

On schedule 4 'when in use' I interpret as if no other is in the vicinity no lead is required. I presume this is correct.

Please rethink this terrible proposal and start spending my council tax on other things like fixing pot holes and creating bypass roads for villages.

Regards

From:

Sent: 14 September 2017 09:37 To: Environment Cc: Peter Coleman; Stephen Bloomfield; Stuart Bird Subject: Public Space Protection Order - Felixstowe

I would like to register my concern about the “Dogs On The Beach” proposals for Felixstowe.

I understand the Town Council voted to support the idea of extending the area where dogs are not permitted on the beach between May & September from Cobbolds Point to Manor End but importantly only between the hours of 10am & 6pm. I have to say this is a complete nonsense.

Families and others visiting our beaches want to know they can go to a part of the beach which is unlikely to have been fouled with dog excrement or urine at all. To that extent, the existing regime – where dogs are banned on the beach altogether between May & September between Arwela Road and the Spa Pavilion Theatre is far preferable to an order covering a wider area but for only part of the day.

From volunteering in the Felixstowe Tourist Information Beach Hut, I have met dog owners would rather know the areas where dogs can roam freely at all times of the day, and are prepared to observe restrictions in other parts. Furthermore, parents and children would far rather have areas relatively unscathed at any time by dog fouling, or indeed the presence of dogs frightening their children or disturbing picnics, sand castles etc. Indeed in my relatively few periods of duty in the TI Hut this year, two people have complained to me that they, or their child have been knocked over by unleashed dogs on the promenade.

I am in support of a total ban of dogs on Landguard Nature Reserve and all children’s play areas, including Martello Park (which is an ungated play area). Small children and dog excrement just do not mix. Sorry to be direct with my terminology, but I do wish to make it clear how repulsive dog fouling is to all of us who don’t possess dogs as pets.

______

From: Sent: 14 September 2017 09:43 To: ; Environment Cc: Subject: RE: Public Space Protection Order - Felixstowe

Hi , I agree. It is preferable for dog walkers to have a stretch where they are permitted. Regards,

From: Sent: 15 September 2017 12:23 To: ; Environment Cc: Subject: RE: Public Space Protection Order - Felixstowe

______

Hi I total agree with you I too think it is complete nonsense to be voted in this way. I think this should be brought back to the council to do this properly as at full council it was not set out and made clear, there was confliction in the vote. There should be a single vote on how much of the beach this effects i.e. Manor End to Cobbles Point and a separate vote on 24 hours or if this is to be timed. Regards

From: Sent: 14 September 2017 12:03 To: Environment Subject: Dog control / public space protection orders

Sirs,

Whilst the above do make sense, I hope that in the long run you are not trying to stop dogs being walked off the lead completely.

All dogs need good exercise as do humans, and if the goal of the Council is to have a fitter society, then dogs need space and places to excercise.

If the Council is trying to encourage more visitors to Suffolk, then those on a Staycation will be adversely affected by any extension to your current plans.

In essence I agree with your proposals as they stand but do not wish to see any further banning of dogs from open spaces in East Suffolk, or indeed the whole of Suffolk.

I also wonder how you are proposing to police this ban? Getting members of the public to report on fellow walkers? Evidence will need to be produced to make any fine or conviction stand.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

From:

Sent: 14 September 2017 15:33 To: Environment Subject: Public space Protection Order area south of Shingle Street.

Dear Sirs

I must protest at the proposal to ban dogs off leads during the spring and summer months for the following reasons:-

A) It effectively prevents the villagers from both Alderton and Bawdsey from taking there dogs for a swim and a run on the freedom of the beach>

B) It erodes the freedom we have all enjoyed over the years . Is it the thin end of the wedge?

C) I understand that this has been precipitated by one incident which could have happened anywhere on our coast , surely you don’t intend inflicting further restrictions every time a bird gets killed ?

D) We all seek to protect our beautiful piece of coast particularly from development, but actions of this nature go to far.

E)I have taken my dogs across the marshes for a swim in the sea now for 36 years . how will they be able to swim on a lead??

PS I think your southern Grid References are wrong, Beach Lane runs from Alderton village directly to the beach. your grid ref is at the end of a lane which has another name entirely.

Alderton

iP12 3DG

From:

Sent: 14 September 2017 16:45 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation c2017/12 – Dogs on Leads (General)

For the attention of Environmental Protection

We wish to support the proposed schedule of restrictions regarding keeping dogs on leads on sportsgrounds, churchyards and allotments, and we would like to propose that the schedule be amended to include the area surrounding beach huts - maybe a specified distance. This is because the grass around beach huts is frequently fouled by dogs, who also urinate against the sides. This mainly happens when dog owners park near the huts and allow their dogs out of the car unleashed so that they run off and relieve themselves without the owner being aware of where they are and what they are doing. We have a beach hut at the Golf Road site in Felixstowe, adjacent to the main footpath to the beach, and this has been a perennial problem over all the 16 years we have owned it, Given that young children play and people eat on the grass outside their huts, we believe this is just as much a puiblic health issue as that of fouling on sports fields. Also when we have been eating both inside and outside our hut we have had unleashed dogs rush up to us, even inside the hut, trying to grab our food. Specifying that dogs must be on a lead in the close vicinity of a beach hut would go a long way to solving this problem. Given that beach hut fees are increasing year on year it would also provide a better quality environment for all beach hut uisers.

I do hope you will give serious consideration to this suggestion.

Your sincerely

From:

Sent: 14 September 2017 20:30 To: Environment Cc: Nigel Odin Subject: PSPO at Landguard Nature Reserve

Dear Sirs,

Please be advised that I am very happy that EVERYONE would benefit from the new Public Space Protection Order for Landguard Nature Reserve.

I was a caravan owner on the Suffolk Sands Caravan Park for 21 years from 1993 to 2014 and a very regular visitor to the site.

Since then I have been an occasional visitor.

I have seen first hand the damage done to wildlife by dogs off the lead in the Reserve and the abuse suffered by myself & several others when this was pointed out to the inconsiderate owners.

An order of this type is LONG OVERDUE and would do much to improve the enjoyment of many people as well as help to halt the decline in numbers of ground nesting birds on the Reserve.

Kind regards,

From: Sent: 14 September 2017 19:57 To: Environment Subject: PSPO at Landguard Nature Reserve

I refer to the proposed Public Space Protection Order at Landguard Nature Reserve. I would like to support this order in that it is important to protect all types of birds and animals who chose to live in this Nature Reserve in order to breed. They must be protected from members of the public and dogs 24/7 and allow the warden to do their job properly with the full backing of the Council and with the penalties proposed by this order. Regards resident of Felixstowe and volunteer at Landguard Fort

From: Sent: 14 September 2017 18:36 To: Environment Subject: Pspo at Landguard

Dear Sir/Madam The introduction of a PSPO at Landguard is an essential measure to manage the reserve for the benefit of all while maintaining the environment for future generations to enjoy. Some of the flora and fauna are vulnerable to disturbance and this order will enable the area to be protected against unreasonable and unwanted activity.

Yours sincerely

Landguard Fort Trust

From:

Sent: 15 September 2017 08:49 To: Environment Subject: LANDGUARD DOG PROTECTION ORDER

Dear Sirs.

I am a historian with an interest in the Landguard peninsular, not a dog walker, and would comment on the consultation as follows:-

I am of the opinion that the present restrictions are sufficient without introducing a further order. Such a measure would only be of use when the area is policed ( by a warden or suchlike)) which it rarely is and unlikely to be in the future.

Yours sincerely.

From:

Sent: 15 September 2017 09:56 To: Environment Subject: Landguard Public Space Protection Order

I am aware of the proposal for a PSPO at Landguard point and I am fully supportive of the proposal. I am a regular user of this area, both as a volunteer at Landguard Fort and also as a regular walker of my dog in this area. I am always keen to lets dogs walk off their leads where it is safe and practical, as it allows them to get more exercise and have more fun, I totally agree that at this location it is more important to look after the needs of the local wildlife. yours

Playford Road, Rushmere St Andrew

From: Sent: 15 September 2017 09:57 To: Environment Subject: Dog Ban at Shingle Street to East Lane

Dear Sir / Madam

I have learned that Suffolk Coastal District Council plan to ban the right for owners to exercise their dogs off the lead south of Shingle Street to East Lane.

As a Shingle Street resident and dog owner who recently purchased a house here expressly so that I could exercise my dog without the constraint of a 2m lead I object most strongly to this proposed ban - which appears to be a knee jerk reaction to an incident with one dog in 2016 and an owner unable to control their pet.

Shingle Street is not a nature reserve and cannot be treated as such. The notion that an ASBO would be applied to a resident out with their dog is both alarming not to mention inappropriately draconian - especially since their seems to have been no public consultation around this issue.

I ask that this matter is dropped or at least referred for further consideration and consultation with local residents.

Yours faithfully

Shingle Street IP12 3BE

From:

Sent: 15 September 2017 10:17 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation: Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 Public Space Protection Orders – Dog Controls in the Suffolk Coastal and Waveney Districts

15 th September 2017 c/o Environmental Protection,Suffolk Coastal District Council, East Suffolk House, Station Road, Melton Suffolk IP12 1RT PSPO Consultation: Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 Public Space Protection Orders – Dog Controls in the Suffolk Coastal and Waveney Districts To Council members, Below are my comments relating to the above proposed “Public Space Protection Orders”. I’ve been a responsible dog/pet owner for over 50 years and accept that there will always be a need to impose some control and exclusions, though I do have concerns over the above PSPO proposal. The SCDC PSPO proposal summary states “This is not a blanket ban on dogs everywhere. It’s about replacing the existing laws to protect specific places where problems have been raised, with a more effective way of ensuring people control nuisance dogs” . My interpretation of the “PSPO 2017/12 Dogs on Leads (General)” is that it’s a total ban, as the schedule details are non-specific to locations, which means that it would be illegal for my dog to be off-lead (e.g)

• On Rushmere Common/Golf course, as it’s a sports facility/green in use. • Outside my front house verge while gardening, as it’s adjacent to a public highway, even though it’s a close, with minimal traffic. • Along Bixley Lane by my house, as it’s an unmade road, capable of carrying motorised traffic. • And basically All public highways, footways and verges, sports grounds, fields, greens, cemeteries, churchyards and allotments.

I’ve no concern with the exclusion of dogs in specific locations and times (e.g beach areas), though my concern is with the "Dogs on Lead" schedule and the use of the word All , which is defined in the English dictionary as “completely or totally”, thus a total ban (e.g. All public highways, All pedestrian footways and verges. All sports grounds, fields, greens, All cemeteries and churchyards, All allotments).

PSPOs are specifically aimed to ensure that public spaces can be enjoyed free from anti-social behaviour. They are not about stopping responsible usage and should only be used to help deal with persistent issues that are damaging communities.

I understand that a pre-consultation exercise with the Town & Parish Councils resulted in only 2 councils raising additional concerns about dog fouling and running loose (off lead), thus I’m concerned that the proposed changes and introduction of the above PSPO would appear to be rather authoritarian, and in my view could result in an increase of other dog problems due to the general lack of exercise and social interaction.

Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Council is a large rural/coastal area and this PSPO would seem to be at odds with a council that has encouraged holidays with dogs and recognised that part of the pleasure of owning a dog comes from taking a dog for walks sometimes without having to keep it on a lead. There are also plenty of locations in Suffolk where a village green, sports area, common land and quite/rural roads are regularly used to walk dogs off a lead with no problems.

If there is sufficient evidence of a problem or concerns due to dogs being off-lead then this should be initially resolved between the Town/Parish Council and the local community. A PSPO should only be issued where there's a persistent problem and only cover the particular public area/location.

I ask Suffolk Coastal District Council to reconsider the proposal and should you require any additional information, clarification of any comments made then do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

From:

Sent: 15 September 2017 10:30 To: Environment Subject: 2017/15– Dogs on Leads, Beach South of Shingle Street

To whom it may concern

2017/15– Dogs on Leads, Beach South of Shingle Street

I would like to object to the banning of free dog walking on South of Shingle Street, the beach and the inlands between the Martello Tower and East lane. I have enjoyed walking my dogs along this route for over 25 years now and I am respectful of the countryside and trained my dogs to return on the whistle. While I appreciate the need to protect wildlife I feel a total blanket ban on dog walking off a lead, both day and night, is extreme. There are many restrictions on dog walkers as it is and this is just another invasion of freedom.

At Shingle Street, and during nesting seasons, we protect an area of the beach for nesting Terns with fencing and signs. Dog walkers can still enjoy a run of the beach, it’s freedom, it’s beauty and the joy of fresh air in an open space without fear of fines or damage to wildlife.

There are many, many people who live in this area together with visitors from stifling neighbouring towns and cities as well as fishermen who will find this proposed ruling unnecessary and irrational. In fact, I would be interested to know how the proposed scheme can possibly be policed.

Please acknowledge this email and please register this objection.

Kind regards

Shottisham.

From:

Sent: 15 September 2017 12:11 To: Environment Subject: To Whom It May Concern

To Whom It May Concern:

Dogs on Leads, Beach South of Shingle Street

I would like to object to the banning of free dog walking on South of Shingle Street, the beach and the inlands between the Martello Tower and East lane. This is a breach of my freedom, I have walked my dogs on the beach for over thirty years. Like the ridiculous situation with the badgers on the road into the hamlet this is bureaucracy gone mad. Someone behind a desk with no sense of reality.

Please register my objection.

From:

Sent: 15 September 2017 13:32 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation

Dear Sir,

I am in favour of the introduction of new controls.

There is an increasing number of dogs / owners who continually ignore the rules at the expense of others. This includes allowing the dogs(s) to roam free – causing a nuisance to others, fouling, not clearing up after the dog, improperly disposing of bagged waste.

As much as I enjoy dogs, I do not wish them to jump up on me with muddy paws, no allow them to scare the children by behaving in a boisterous (although non aggressively) manner.

Thank you.

Best Regards

From: Sarah Sent: 15 September 2017 14:06 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads, beach south of shingle street

Dears sirs

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed public space protection order.

I cannot possibility see how there is detrimental effect of life of those in the locality, the area of beach is a secluded area enjoyed by local people. Furthermore it is not a highly populated area with no houses within the area of restriction.

I have walked the tracks and beach for many years with children and dogs during all seasons and have always enjoyed the freedom to allow our children and dog to enjoy the beach without any concerns or problems

I fear that gradually our freedom is being taken away for what appears to be no apparent reason. The area of beach is not a high tourist area and I have not seen dogs causing a nuisance. If there is concern for wildlife actions should be taken by the Council to fence these areas rather than ban the enjoyment of the local families, a ban of course will almost be impossible to enforce.

It appears that many considerate village people are being penalised for what I can only think is a few complaints by a minority.

I shall look forward to your earliest response.

Yours faithfully

Alderton

From:

Sent: 15 September 2017 14:44 To: Environment Subject: Ref dogs on lead at Shingle Street

Dear Sir

I am a resident at Shingle and wish object strongly to the proposal of stating that dogs should be kept on short leads all the year round. The majority of dog owners who walk here are very responsible and i see no need for it at all. MORE signs we will soon look like a municipal park.

I find it odd that nobody at Shingle Street has been consulted on this matter.

Yours sincerely

From: Sent: 15 September 2017 22:50 To: Environment Subject: Dogs

Dear Sir/Madam,

I understand concerns regarding dogs and their potential bad behaviour and/or fouling. I am a dog owner and always clear up after my dog and place the used bags into designated receptacles. I also hate the mess that doesn't get cleared up and wish the owners would be responsible, but am not aware of these irresponsible selfish owners ever received any punishment for this. As with owners not knowing how to or possibly caring about the behaviour of their pets, again I'm not sure it is always that easy to catch the owners who are responsible for this.

The trouble is it is equally unfair to punish the majority for the behaviour of a minority. Why should us responsible dog owners not be able to enjoy the seaside with our pets? I don't see the public being punished for the mess they leave on the beach, prom or countryside that is irrelevant to dogs. The amount of rubbish left in Langer park over the summer holidays was horrendous and has nothing to do with dogs or their owners. If dog owners have more stringent controls put in place, what areas will you provide to allow dogs areas to exercise in instead?

I can walk to Langer Park and the beach, not needing a car. If you ban us from there, where can we go instead and what impact if we then have to drive. For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.

I think it is fair to not allow dogs on the main part of the beach between April - September. I think dogs should be controlled around areas with ground dwelling birds such as Landguard. But equally, ordinary mess and rubbish is a far greater problem than the behaviour and mess from dogs: rubbish on the beaches, promenade, parks, roads, plastic etc in the sea in particular and the ever increasing landfill, but closure of sites to take it to.

Perhaps you should also take in to consideration the positive effects of owning dogs and of walking them: - exercise: especially if it is the only exercise people get - health benefits: i.e. weight control, heart strengthening, aiding digestion - mental wellbeing: exercise, fresh air, loneliness, socialising and friendships, love & trust with their pet, relaxation, time to think or not to think, take in the countryside and/or views - social engagement: might be the only socialisation some people have - monetary value to local businesses: I frequently spend money at the kiosks on refreshments whilst out walking.

When my friend is out dog walking she also litter picks on and around the beach. I have challenged people I've seen dropping rubbish and behaving anti socially, with positives outcomes. My dog likes to pick up plastic bottles she finds dumped, for me to throw or kick to her and I then put them in the bin.

Please don't just look at one side and make knee-jerk reactions that also make life worse and placing restrictions onto the majority for the sake of the minority.

The best way to deal with negative issues/problems is with positivity, as humans we all want to feel good about ourselves. Focus on rewarding positive behaviour and the negative will naturally decrease.

I live with anxiety and depression which has been eased with dog walking. If restrictions were put into place to make this less enjoyable or easy for me, my mental and physical health would suffer too. Also, if you respond in a negative way, people will ultimately just dig their heals in and ignore the changes, which will benefit no-one.

Please try instead to work with dog owners/ walkers and not against them.

You're faithfully

From:

Sent: 16 September 2017 17:17 To: Environment Subject: Shingle Street

It should not be necessary to keep dogs on a lead in Shingle Street and even people who live there are very disappointed that this is being considered. Perhaps this decision could be reviewed.

sincerely.

From:

Sent: 17 September 2017 09:09 To: Environment Subject: proposed leash ban south of Shingle Street

Dear all,

As a dog owner and resident of Shingle Street, the council’s proposed leashing of dogs south of the Martello Tower, comes as something of a surprise. And an unwelcome one at that. This area is currently used by cyclists, walkers, pony trekkers, fishermen and women, bird watchers, and of course dog walkers and owners – all of whom treat the route, and the people, animals, and wildlife encountered on it, with the upmost respect and care.

Over time, naturally, there have been some breaches - birdwatchers inadvertently disturbing nests with their tripods and cameras, fishermen leaving tackle and debris on the beach, day trippers lighting fires and damaging the shingle, passing boats disgorging plastic bottles and containers, wind surfers sluicing the sea lagoon’s delicate shingle ridges, trekkers damaging rare plants, cyclists leaving rut marks through kale beds and sea pea stands – but all have been addressed by local residents and resolved without the requirement of a ban, or a restriction order. Despite these occasional intrusions, in contrast, during the five years I have walked my dog along this route, there has been only one single, and unhappy incident, involving a dog, and two nesting Avocets.

Residents, including dog owners, as always were quick to respond, all reporting the incident, and others placing signs along the route, and on key areas of the beach, and the south dyke, to remind people that vigilence is required at all times – not just by dog owners, but by walkers, cyclists, trekkers, and birdwatchers themsleves, all of whom have the right to enjoy the pleasures and solitudes of this landcape, without one being favoured unduly over the other.

To penalise dog owners, because of a single incident, seems disproportionate, and out of character with the eqalitarian traditions of the routes many of us walk daily.

More to the point, by introducing such a ban, as a council, you risk demonstrating a bias that many people - residents, and visitors- will find objectionable, and indeed, inconsistant with the realities of living in such an outstanding area, where the requirement to protect its bird population, must also be balanced with the wider needs of such a diverse community of people who use the beach, pathways and surrounding fields for recreation, solice and meditation.

Surely if we are to issue restrictions against one group, the same partiality must be shown to others? A ban on ramblers wearing bright clothing because it frightens birds? On fishermen using rod and line because of the problems disgarded tackle and lures cause to seabirds, and indeed people and animals walking the shore? Or perhaps we should ban birdwatchers themsleves? Or issue them with restrictive movement orders due to the ongoing damage caused by their camera tripods on the area’s protected flora and fauna? And pony trekkers? Should they too be banned from the paths and fields they now use because of the ever present threat of their hooves to nesting, or mating birds?

Of course, this kind of thing sounds eccentric, but so too does the proposed enforcement of a leash law, when so many other users of the lands in questiion are as likely to do as much, if not more damage, due their their presence.

My point? The ban isn’t at all democractic, nor indeed anything that amounts to being sensible or serious. It is, if anything, knee-jerk and lacking in any understanding, of local needs, or long term environmental requirements that satisfy the many, rather than the privilaged few.

I’d seriously ask you to reconsider the nature of this proposal, and to take into account the broader issues of ‘fair usage’ of the lands in question, rather than choosing to ‘punish’ one group, for a single accident, that has, if all things are considered, caused less harm to the local bird population than fishing tackle being left on the beach, or illegal shoots taking place on the grounds and fieleds inland from the paths leading to and away from East Lane. Sincerely hoping that we are able to discuss this matter in more equitable ways.

Best From:

Sent: 17 September 2017 12:48 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders in the Suffolk Coastal District

Dear Sir / Madam,

Public Space Protection Orders in the Suffolk Coastal District - Proposed Amendment of the "Dog Controls"

I live in Aldeburgh and fully support the Council’s proposals to introduce tighter dog controls and to increase the obligation on owners to keep "dogs on leads” on Aldeburgh beach.

Dog Fouling provides known health hazards for people and the Environment and if dogs are on leads this will prevent the all too common problem of dogs running away out of sight and their owners not actually seeing them poo and therefore not clearing up after them.

Additionally the beach is a play area for children and they, and other vulnerable people, need protection from over- zealous and occasionally aggressive dogs and the only way to achieve this is for dogs to be on leads.

I would also like to suggest that the Council considers extending the area of Aldeburgh beach on which dogs must be on leads to include the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that is cordoned off in the summer to protect the flora & wildlife including many ground nesting birds. Whilst the ropes prevent damage by people they do nothing to prevent damage by dogs and ensuring that they are on leads would go a long way to solving this problem.

I sincerely hope that the Council is successful in it’s efforts to tighten up dog controls and in the meantime if you would be kind enough to acknowledge receipt of this e-mail it would be appreciated.

Kind Regards,

From: Sent: 17 September 2017 12:45 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders comment

Dear Environmental Protection

I wish to place on record my strong objection to the proposed PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDER Anti Social Behaviour Crime & Policing Act 2014 2017/12 – Dogs on Leads (General) element of your proposed Orders which are currently out for consultation.

According to your own evidence the responses to your initial consultation with local councils had no comments relating to the requirement for dogs to be on leads at all times in the stated areas of this particular Order and thus these draconian restrictions that you propose appear to have been developed by officials rather than reacting to initial consultation. Thus your process for developing these draft orders appears to be flawed and makes them open to future legal challenge.

The terms published in the proposal relate to ‘ All public highways in the Suffolk Coastal District, including all classes of roads whether made or unmade, capable of carrying motorised vehicle traffic, EXCLUDING footpaths and rights of way not normally intended for public vehicular access. 2. All pedestrian footways and verges adjacent to public highways specified in 1 above.’ In many areas East Suffolk there are unmade ‘roadways’ (examples include around Sizewell/Thorpness and Minsmere/Dunwich) where vehicular access is allowed although these are essentially footways and vehicles are encountered very infrequently. Thus the breadth is unduly restrictive.

The key issue though is that of ‘over regulation’. You have failed to identify a problem that requires such a draconian solution as dogs having to be on leads at all times in the areas identified. Responsible owners are well able to assess risk and keep their dog under control if the location is suitable. Personally I would never dream of risking my dog’s well-being on or by a road where fast traffic or ‘surprises’ can be encountered but at the same time my dog is trained to return to my side immediately on sensing a vehicle approaching.

The proposed order plans to criminalise the actions of responsible people and is unacceptable in a free society.

I thank you for your attention to my comments. Please acknowledge receipt

Kelsale,

Suffolk

From:

Sent: 17 September 2017 11:25 To: Environment Subject: response to proposed PSPO at Shingle Street

To whom it may concern, I am writing in response to the proposed use of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to compel dogs to be on leads to the beach south of the Martello Tower at Shingle Street between May-Sept. While your website (http://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/environment/environmental-protection/animals/dog-control/public-space-protection- orders/ ) on Public Space Protection Orders states that this proposal is to protect ground nesting birds you are intending this restriction to be enforced under the Public Space Protection Order as part of the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. On the more detailed document concerning the proposal with regard to Shingle Street (http://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/assets/Environment/Environmental-Protection/Animals/Dog-Control/SCDC/PSPO-Cons- 15-2017-Dogs-On-Bawdsey-Beach.pdf ) under section 4 The Activity you note that the council believes that such a restriction will satisfy section 59 of the Act in that the current activity (dogs off leads) "has a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality". And furthermore that the council is satisfied that the activity (dogs off leads) "is likely to be of a persistent or continuing nature and is or is likely to be such as to make the Activity unreasonable and the effect justifies the restrictions imposed."

It is the use of this Act and particularly how your proposal relates to section 59 of the Act that I would like to take issue with.

Firstly, there are only two dwellings south of the Martello Tower, thus in the locality. I live in a neighoubouring village to Shingle Street and I both swim and walk my dogs on the beach throughout the summer and winter months I am therefore in a position to observe just how busy that stretch of coastline is between May and September. Most days there is no-one on the beach when I visit, even during August. On occasion there may be the odd fisherman, or family sitting on the beach in front of the tower - rarely is anyone further south on the beach. Therefore, I would like to know how will the presence of the odd dog off-lead "effect the quality of life of those in the vicinity" as there really is no-one in the vicinity to have their quality of life affected?

Secondly, very few people actually walk their dogs on the beach so how can it be considered of such a persistent or continuing nature that the activity is unreasonable?

Thirdly, this Act is intended to limit anti-social behaviour that has an impact on people in the locality. I can therefore completely understand using the Act to restrict dog access to a busy beach such as Aldeburgh or Southwold in the summer months when dogs running off lead and out of control would directly affect the quality of life of other beach users. I also fully support ensuring that dogs are under control in public spaces and that dogs are not allowed to foul public spaces. I am also a business owner in the local vicinity (the campsite and smallholding in Shottisham). We have livestock (including birds and sheep), but welcome people with dogs to stay on our campsite and walk through our land, so I am aware of the importance of people keeping their dogs under control and acting in a responsible manner. However, you are trying to use the act to protect nesting birds which seems to me to be an altogether separate issue and not under the purview of this Act.

Fourthly, what evidence to you have that nesting birds are actually disturbed in this area and that the disturbance is from dogs? Surely before bringing in such a measure you will have undertaken a detailed analysis of the situation that is publicly available. I would like to read such a report.

Fifthly, if there is an issue with nesting birds why not start the exclusion zone further south on the beach so that people can continue to walk along the main Shingle Street beach past the Martello Tower? Why aren't similar restricted areas being suggested for the beach north of the Martello Tower, for the beach south of East Lane? Why has this area been singled out? Alternatively, rather than issue a Public Space Protect Order which seems a little extreme (and unjustified) given the circumstances why not simply ask people to ensure their dogs are under control in this area.

Sixthly, if the main concern is the protection of nesting birds, then why not cordon off the whole area, surely children running gleefully on the beach, or even people simply walking could equally disturb nesting birds?

I would appreciate a reply particularly concerning my comments about the appropriateness of using the Act for the purpose you outline. Secondly, I would like further information on who made the proposal (who raised the issue of dogs here as a problem for example) and the reasons given for it and any evidence given to the council to support the recommendation.

I look forward to hearing from you. If you require further information about any of the points I have raised above or would like to discuss this matter further, I would be happy to oblige.

Twickenham

From: Sent: 17 September 2017 15:27 To: Environment Subject: Dogs, Felixstowe

> I have followed closely the story regarding dogs within Felixstowe. After giving it much thought I feel that the laws are not addressing the real issues. I feel there is a case for all dogs being kept on a lead all the time. I live in Felixstowe near Brackenbury cliff. Several times a year I see dogs running off from their owners. Again, yesterday, a dog, not on a lead, ran over cliff road. Cars have to brake suddenly to avoid hitting them. I know most dog owners would say that their pets wouldn't do such a thing. But even the best behaved/trained dog is capable of running off.

The other problem we have in the area is dog fouling. Many owners exercise their animals at night. Many of these dogs are allowed off their leads. It doesn't take much to work out that dogs doing their business cannot not be seen in the dark. There is always an increase in dog mess in the darker evenings and mornings. How about the current laws being enforced or no dogs off leads, at all anywhere. Yes, I know this won't be popular, but at least it would prevent accidents and cut down on dog fouling.

Thanks

From:

Sent: 17 September 2017 16:22 To: Environment Subject: Changes in dog related laws

To whom it may concern,

I am a resident in Felixstowe and a dog owner. Whilst I understand that there are a few dog owners that abuse the freedom that we have I do feel that the majority respect the rules that are in place.

I feel that stopping dogs being able to go on more of the beach is unfair to the owners who are responsible. We often go down the beach as a family (dog included) and we all respect the environment. There are parents who leave nappies and let their children use the beach as a toilet that I think have a greater impact on the enjoyment of others.

I would therefore like to see the current restrictions remain as they are.

Regards

From:

Sent: 17 September 2017 22:16 To: Environment Subject: Dog walking in Felixstowe

As frequent visitors to Felixstowe we very much appreciate being able to walk our little dog along the promenade and having access to designated areas of the beach throughout the year. We would ask that signage be very clearly displayed so that all interested parties know what is permissable. In the past information provided has been confusing.

Thank you

From: Sent: 15 September 2017 17:42 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on Leads (general provisions)

Dear SCDC

You have invited comments on the above proposed PSPO.

I would like to state that I find item numbers 1, 3, 5 and 6 within the attached schedule sensible and understandable.

With regards to item number 2, I believe this to be unnecessary and unacceptable. There are many footways and verges adjacent to public highways, within the SCD, where 'controlled' dogs can quite safely be walked off a lead.

With regards to item number 4, I believe that this should be more specific if it is to stand, e.g. I live by a very large sports field, The Grove playing fields off Links Avenue, Felixstowe, where there are several sports pitches. These pitches are not all in use at the same time, therefore there is a very large area where dogs may be exercised off a lead around the sides of any pitch that may be in use. The current wording of item 4 would suggest that access to the complete sports field would be prohibited to dogs off a lead when any one of the pitches was being used.

Having previously been a 'responsible' dog owner, although I no longer own one, I would appreciate your consideration of these comments with changes being made to your proposals.

Kind regards From: Sent: 18 September 2017 19:07 To: Environment Subject: Consultation on proposed Public Space Protection Order

This is a response in support of the draft proposals amending current dog control orders as listed for Suffolk Coastal, where I live. I don't feel qualified to comment on the Waveney list.

2017/10. I would be in favour of dogs being kept on a fixed length lead for the whole of the restricted area (Schedule C) for the better protection of wild life and vegetation.

2017/15. Supported for the reason above.

2017/13. Very welcome (even overdue).

2016/16. This is the unresolved, worsening problem. I think there is not a local footpath I have taken that is not fouled to some degree.

2016/14 and 2017/11. Supported.

2017/12. Fully supported. I would like it extended to OS or other defined footpaths, but realise this may be a wish too far. I am frequently accosted by strange dogs when walking - jumped at, snapped at, barked at, (diving for my beaker before I could pick it up on one occasion). It is simply unpleasant.

2017/12. Schedule, item 5. Suggest it includes the Quaker Burial Ground, Woodbridge, if not covered by the existing wording.

Kind regards

IP12 4BP

From: Sent: 18 September 2017 17:21 To: Environment Cc: Subject: Changes to Dog Controls

Dear ,

I should like to comment on the proposed new dog controls.

I am a dog owner and should like to record my pleasure at having moved to Felixstowe some 9 years ago, to find it was so dog friendly and well equipped with bins. The council should be congratulated on their enlightened policy towards the many, many dog owners in this area. I have no issue with the current proposals, so long as they are not extended to parks or other beaches.

However, I recognise that there are a small minority of dog owners who choose to ignore the rules and do not maintain their control or clear up. I find this abhorrent and welcome the possibility of deterrent. But how will these be applied? A warden would be expensive and unlikely to be in the right place at the right time. Police etc have more pressing tasks. The revenue from fines is negligible at present.

May I suggest consideration be given to a most radical alternative deterrent? Utilise the majority of the public/caring dog owners, who now have mobile phones with video camera to record incidents and provide evidence (subject to suitable guidelines). As an incentive, pay a percentage of the fine imposed as a bounty to the individual providing the video evidence, after successful prosecution/fine. I suspect the number of transgressions would fall dramatically and the District Council receive a new income stream.

Yours sincerely

From: Sent: 18 September 2017 21:27 To: Environment Subject: DOG PSPO consultation

Proposed changes to Landguard Nature Reserve - whilst I have not objections to the tightening of the rule of dogs on leads in the present area of reserve to protect the wildlife, I do not understand the need to include the additional area to the Manor car park - unless I misunderstand the area to be covered. In line with this proposal those fishing on the shore line need to be included in leaving fishing line, hooks and general rubbish.

As for the general PSPO dogs on leads order this seems to indicate that we are not responsible dog walkers and that common sense does not prevail......

I cannot see how a PSPO will benefit such places as Hyams Lane which is an unmade road but as I understand this will be included in the Dogs on Leads order. Also there are lots of green spaces where responsible dog owners take their dogs for exercise which are adjacent to a footpath or road. The grass area at the top of the Dip Is this included?? and as for sports areas in use if there is one match on the Grove does this means that we cannot let our dogs off their leads even if we are 50+ metres away.

Where do you expect us to exercise our dogs? We are being dictated to and are unable to use our common sense. By all means punish people who do not clear up after their dogs they give the rest of us a bad name.

Councillor quotes "this isn't about banning dogs everywhere" but this seems to be the objective, and a money making exercise in doing so!

As for the consultation there are a great number of dog walkers out there who have no idea that this is happening...... I have spoken with many people on the Grove who have no knowledge, let alone how to make a comment on this consultation (I have only found out how to today!).

To make this a fair consultation this needs to made more public with notices being placed around the areas affected. I for one would like much more clarity on the proposals before anything is set in stone.

Felixstowe

From: ] Sent: 18 September 2017 10:49 To: Environment Subject: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - CONSULTATION

Dear Sirs

These comments are submitted in response to the consultation running until 22 nd September. As I am a dog owner living in Felixstowe, my comments are restricted to dog controls.

I entirely agree with keeping dogs under control at all times, and largely agree with the current level of restrictions as it affects public open spaces, recreation grounds, the beach, etc.

However, I do think it unfair that a few dog-owning hut owners in the central area of Felixstowe beach (dogs banned May to October) are unable to have their dogs with them at their huts during the summer. These dogs would not cause any problem, being in the hut or behind a windbreak for most of the time, and kept on a lead by their owners. These huts are put back onto the prom at the end of September, usually with doors facing inland to avoid vandalism, and so it is only possible for owners to enjoy their huts on the beach, with their dogs present, for less than a month each year. They currently pay £600+ for the privilege of having a hut on that part of the beach and I would ask that an exclusion from the ban be made in respect of dogs belonging to a hut, irrespective of the part of the beach, if they are kept in the immediate area of their hut, on a lead.

I take part in several litter picks a year. A few days ago we collected 10+ kilos from the beach left by visitors – and a large amount from fishermen, discarded wire, fish debris and even a hook!) – and only one dog deposit. I therefore feel it is a little unfair to penalise all responsible dog owners for the sake of a few irresponsible ones, and the council’s efforts might be better directed to getting visitors to pick up their discarded rubbish or face a fine.

On the subject of litter, would it be possible to make a minor change to the bin provisions at Eastward Ho recreation ground? At the south west entrance from Links Avenue there is a litter bin and a dog bin. At the north east entrance from Hyems Lane (the bridleway from Park Farm/Gulpher Road) there are two dog bins and no litter bin. I regularly pick up litter on Eastward Ho and it is frustrating not to be able to put it in the bin when I get to the bridleway. Also, there is often litter left along the bridleway which is likely to have been put in a litter bin if one was provided . Please could one dog bin be swapped for a litter bin, or a litter bin added, on the Hyems Lane/Eastward Ho corner?

Thank you.

Felixstowe IP11 9LU

Suffolk

From: Sent: 19 September 2017 10:35 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation

Objection - Dogs on Lead (general) Please be aware of the devastating affect the Dogs on Lead (general) draft proposal will have on tourism to the area. Dog owners choose Suffolk specifically for it's laid back, friendly acceptance that our dog is part of our family and deserves as much respect as we do. Shops, Hotels, Bars and restaurants allow our dear canine companions with open arms, how will these businesses compete with other parts of the country if the council make their customers feel unwelcome? Short sited, over reaction over a few irresponsible dog owners. Your ideas are punitive and take us back to the dark ages. Think of the Millions you will lose when nobody wants to visit anymore. I used to travel here 3 to 5 times a year from Cambridge to enjoy a holiday with my dog, I wouldn't have considered this if the new protection orders had been implemented. If you have money to waste on implementing these arrangements then I can only guess the plan, ultimately, is to fine as many dog walkers as possible to make this an income revenue.

Leiston

From: ] Sent: 19 September 2017 10:57 To: Environment Subject: Dog walking

To whom it may concern,

We understand that there is a proposal to only allow dogs on leads on the beach from Shingle Street to Bawdsey in order to protect nesting birds. As regular dog walkers along there this would seem unnecessarily restrictive.

Surely a better plan would be to insist that dogs are walked on leads during the nesting period. We feel that it is very important to protect the birds but also to provide as much space as possible for dogs to properly exercise, as this has become more and more restricted in recent years.

It seems a sensible compromise not to have an all out ban but a restriction at certain times of the year.

Yours sincerely,

From: Sent: 19 September 2017 11:31 To: Environment Cc: Subject: Consultation Response - Public Space Protection Orders Dogs

Dear

Dog Control PSPO Consultation Response

I write for and on behalf of Easton Parish Council.

The Parish Council supports many of the proposed changes but is concerned about the proposed Order relating to Dogs on Leads (General) provisions, as currently drafted.

The Council’s concern is regarding the pack of working hounds in Easton village. It would not work for them to have to be on leads at all times.

It does not seem to have been your intention that the Order should have this impact, as your online note introducing the detailed draft refers to ‘nuisance dogs’.

The Parish Council considers that there should be an exemption for working dogs.

Yours sincerely,

Clerk to Easton Parish Council

From: Sent: 19 September 2017 16:05 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation

Dear Sir

I wish to make the following comments regarding this consultation:

When entering the word “Consultations” in the SCDC website search facility this consultation does not appear on the list of active consultations. It is only by searching for “dog consultations” does this consultation appear. The consultation process is therefore flawed and invalid.

The proposals to use PSPO legislation in this situation is deeply concerning as it was far from the intention of Parliament to use this legislation to deal with such a trivial issue.

1. There are adequate current rules in place which SCDC has failed to enforce to prevent any general problems from nuisance dogs and their owners.

2. Whilst specific localised use of PSPO legislation might be appropriate for specific areas with specific problems the blanket use of this legislation covering the many many miles of public highway is draconian in the extreme. No evidence is provided of the number of incidents involving dogs that requires this response.

3. Where is the money to come from to enforce this proposal? To provide 2 full time employees at a basic grade to provide enforcement will cost a minimum of £50,000pa. This is the equivalent of issuing 682 fines of £80. Given the SCDC record regarding enforcement of dog fouling regulations the chances of this occurring are laughably small leaving a hefty bill for the tax payer. If there are certain localities where such regulations are deemed necessary then this should be funded by the local Parish or Town Councils demanding it – rather like our village is expected to pay for signs to advise drivers of their speed in an attempt to stop speeding through our village.

4. If public authorities don’t have enough money to meet existing responsibilities (eg. Suffolk County Council mending potholes, cleaning road signs; Suffolk District Council dealing with planning enforcement issues, funding of care in the community for vulnerable residents, Suffolk Police unable to enforce speed limits) then adding a new set of rules & regulations that will dig further into what we are told are meagre resources seems absurd.

Melton

Woodbridge

IP12 1LG

From: Sent: 19 September 2017 19:23 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads (general provisions)

Dear Sir

I would welcome the Protection Order that would make it necessary for owners to have their dogs on leads while on or adjacent to vehicular highways, sports grounds, etc. While all dog owners will contend that they have control of their dogs, I see very often that they really do not or simply choose not to exercise control of their dogs.

Having a dog on a lead next to a road seems simply to be common sense. While it could be in control at one moment, it could become distracted or excited by any number of things it comes across and cause an accident.

While I can see the pleasure that dogs bring, the damage they can cause, unfortunately, is also ever- present and I always worry when my children, in particular my eight year old (who loves dogs), come across an un-restrained dog. I remember a particular incident when walking in the woods near our home when a large dog approached us off a lead while the owner was quite some distance away. The dog was borderline aggressive and, when the owner eventually brought it back under control seemed herself to be very rattled by the incident. This ought not to be permitted in our society.

Regards

From: ] Sent: 19 September 2017 20:46 To: Environment Subject: Proposed changes regarding dogs in Felixstowe

The extension of the area northwards from the sea wall on Landguard Common to the Manor Road car park does seem to be punitive. That dogs should be on a lead and controlled to stop them running about on the SSSI part of the common should be enforced. Over the years, I have regularly advised other dog owners about keeping dogs on leads in this area but many people still persist in allowing their animals to roam free. It is felt that more stringent enforcement is necessary to prevent disturbance in this area.

The proposal to include the area to the north of the sea wall alongside the butts is, I feel, unnecessary. Dogs do need to have unrestricted exercise at times and I am not aware of birds nesting at ground level on this part of the common.

There have been comments made about people not seeing birds on the shoreline along the SSSI. This is no doubt due to people walking there and also loose dogs creating disturbance.

Owners that allow dog mess to be left or those who bag it, then leave the bags lying around also greatly irritate me. Regularly, I clear other people's mess or bags from the beach, in fact, it is almost a daily problem. To actually be able to fine the perpetrators would be difficult. On occasion, I have challenged people over this and have only received negative, abusive comments in return.

The existing ban of dogs on the beach along the promenade appears to be totally ignored by many. Therefore I see no advantage in extending this regulation.

Litter, too, is also a problem. Too many people visit the car parks and just throw out their rubbish after visiting take aways.

The car parks at Garrison Lane, Manor Terrace and The Viewpoint should remain free of charge..

Charging for the Viewpoint parks would, no doubt, have a detrimental affect on visitors to the Fort, Museum, Cafe and those that use the Ferry to Harwich.

From: Bromeswell Parish Council Sent: 19 September 2017 17:29 To: Environment Subject: Dog PSPO Consultation - Response from Bromeswell PC

Dear Sir

The Parish Council is only in favour of introducing regulations that can reasonably be expected to be enforced and where there is an evidence backed need.

Given the pressure on the council’s resources that we are told are immense by our District Councillor at every Parish Council meeting and the evidence of the councils inability to enforce existing rules & regulations (noticeably planning enforcement) we see little benefit in introducing rules & regulations that will anger and annoy many residents and do possible damage to our important tourism industry. If SCDC has the resources to enforce these proposals then it clearly has a bigger share of the public purse than it deserves. Any funds would be better spent in enhancing care for vulnerable members of our community or in helping the police to reduce speeding on rural roads.

The Parish Council is against these proposals.

Bromeswell Parish Clerk

From: Sent: 20 September 2017 09:46 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads

This proposal is draconian, unnecessary, and absurd. There is some merit in schedule items 4-6, vaguely justifiable merit in schedule item 3, but no need whatsoever in schedule items 1-2. Some dogs are well behaved and have good road sense, some not, the responsibility lies with the owner. We live on an unmade road in Woodbridge, passing traffic amounts to half a dozen cars a day, our dog does not need to be on a lead outside our house. Nor when we walk into town along largely traffic-free roads including Wilderness Lane and St Johns Hill.

As a Suffolk Coastal tax payer I object most strongly to this proposal as drafted.

Rather than creating yet more regulations, why not first enforce the existing regulations, for example catching those dog owners who don't pick up their dog's mess?

Sent from my iPad

From: Parish Clerk [ Sent: 20 September 2017 11:58 To: Environment Subject: RE: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION

Dear

The consultation proposals in relation to Public Space Protection Orders were considered by Melton Parish Council at its meeting last week.

Melton owns large areas of playing fields and woodland which are enjoyed by dog owners (most of whom behave responsibly) as well as hosting youth football matches, so the issues raised are of direct interest.

Broadly councillors support the proposals re play areas (our fenced off play area has notices banning dogs) and dog fouling. However they feel that the proposals to require dogs to be kept on a lead either in defined public places or in the vicinity of sporting activities are unnecessary here and out of proportion to any occasional problems that arise in this parish.

Yours sincerely

Clerk to Melton Parish Council,

From: Charsfield Parish Council Date: 20 September 2017 at 12:48 Subject: Re: Proposed public space protection orders 2017/12 Dogs on Leads (General) and 2016/16 Dog Fouling To:

Dear Sirs

With reference to the above Protection Order, Charsfield Parish Council would like Suffolk Coastal District Council to go ahead with the amendments proposed to this order.

Having discussed these proposals at our meeting on 19 th September Charsfield Parish Council would like to nominate Charsfield Recreation Ground (The Alan Pedgrift Memorial Field), Chapel Lane, Charsfield IP13 7PX and St Peter's Churchyard, Church Road, Charsfield as “restricted areas” whereby the above orders can be enforced.

Parish Clerk

From: ] Sent: 20 September 2017 13:04 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders

I wish to comment on the proposals for new PSCOs in Felixstowe.

1.Dogs in Childrens Play Areas

MARTELLO PARK

As you must be aware this area is not fenced, gated or fitted with grids so does not appear to fit the criteria given in the proposals.

BUT it is extremely popular with families with young children, older children visiting without parents, cyclists, walkers and dog owners.

Presently at least 50% of dog owners do not keep their dogs on leads despite the numerous, mostly very small, signs telling them to do so.

Consequently at any given time you are likely to see several dogs off the lead,or on very long leads, a large number of people walking upwards of 2 dogs, people on mobility scooters with 1, 2 or even 3 dogs on leads walking/running alongside and also young children walking a dog.

At busy popular times like weekends,after school and school holidays this is not an exaggeration. At less busy times, there are just fewer people doing these things.

An accident waiting to happen comes to mind as how difficult would it be to control a dog/dogs under these conditions should the need arise?

2.Exclusion of Dogs on Felixstowe Beach

Visitors to Martello Park have dramatically increased in the last 2 years and they also spend time on the beach, moving from one to the other to picnic, paddle etc

Allowing dogs onto the beach at anytime means that visitors/residents will not have an area which is dog free and where they can relax without worrying about poo! Now that's another problem!

My final point please is how will the PSPOs be "policed" as a lot of this behaviour is early morning (6am onwards) & mid evening ( 8pm onwards)?

Thank you.

IP11 2GB

From: Sent: 20 September 2017 14:30 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders - Dog fouling

Hello

I have read through the document.

My main 'gripe' is that many dog owners do NOT adhere to the order, whereby, they let dogs go on the beach in the 'No Dogs Allowed' areas, and let them foul, but do NOT clean up after them. It is disgusting!

Many don't even clean up in the 'dogs allowed' areas too.

Having to check thoroughly before walking/sitting on the beach in the 'No dogs allowed' area is ridiculous and puts me off from going on the beach with my grandchildren.

CCTV or patrols along the beach would deter owners from letting their dogs foul and not clearing up, especially in the 'No dogs allowed' area.

Regards

From: Sent: 20 September 2017 16:27 To: Environment Subject: New proposals for dogs being kept on leads

The main point I would like to make as a responsible dog owner in every way, is that I feel it's the owners who need training. If people were responsible then our dogs could be free to run and enjoy themselves in our countryside and on the beach. I agree with the May to September exclusion area. I think a public consultation meeting should take place if you could cope with the raft of complaints to your over the top proposals. You have to realise a lot of dog owners are elderly and may not have access to your website but would still appreciate giving their opinion. It may be also that their dog walks are their only exercise and pleasure. I wish you would reconsider and leave things they way they are now and don't try to spoil everyone's walks with our our doggy friends. Sent from my iPad

From: ] Sent: 20 September 2017 16:39 To: Environment Subject: Dogs consultation

I would like to object to the order enforcing all dogs to be kept on leads on all roads with vehicular access as this is very over the top. What are you trying to solve? I live down a public bridleway which is a dead end with very little access only traffic. Why should my dog have always have to be on a lead here? We have never had problems in our lane. There are many country roads where there is little traffic and many dogs will be fine off the lead. Why tar everyone with the same brush? Most responsible adults know whether their dog should be kept on a lead or not and take appropriate action. We also have some public open spaces in our village where the odd occasion there maybe someone using it as a playing field (when dogs can be kept on a lead) but 99% of the time it is not used for this purpose. Why penalise people for this odd occasion? More and more places are becoming out of bounds to people walking their dogs and if you aren't a responsible owner you will just ignore it anyway. By all means keep some beaches dog free in the summer and limit them from children's playgrounds/areas but this is way over the top. This is a very Draconian measure like taking a sledgehammer to break a nut and should not go ahead in its current form. Regards

From: Sent: 20 September 2017 16:57 To: Environment Subject: Controlling dogs at Felixstowe

Whilst I understand the need to protect wildlife and feel that the areas at Landguard should be free of dogs we need to bear in mind that dogs require exercise. I feel that dog owners should be responsible for the behaviour of their dogs, including the removal of fouling. Open use of the beach except between May and September should remain in the areas shown. Councils need to remember that dogs need open spaces to run and as you are busy constructing new houses and blocking roads with cars where do you suggest dogs should go? Dog owners should attend training sessions, be held accountable for unsocial behaviour and remove any mess left behind. The owners are at fault not the dogs - same as with children! All of us- dogs and humans - have a right to enjoy the countryside and the beach so stop excluding animals. Thank you .

From: Sent: 20 September 2017 17:04 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection orders consultation

Darsham Parish Council

Councillors discussed your proposals at their Sept. meeting and felt that putting dogs on leads on allotments would impact on the local public support we have for our allotments and orchards projects. Many of our volunteers and plot-holders bring well behaved dogs and we feel that keeping dogs on leads would lead to far fewer volunteers and the community use of a valued resource.

Yours etc , clerk to the parish council Email:

From: Sent: 20 September 2017 19:42 To: Environment;

Subject: Dog Controls in the Suffolk Coastal and Waveney Districts

Hello,

I am opposed to this initiative as the granting of powers to issue on the spot fines where there are already adequate laws that are not properly used amounts to a loss of freedom for any person with a dog.

To make a criminal of a person who using their judgement exercises a dog in a restricted area is draconian.

Responsible dog owners are once again being lumped into a category with the very few irresponsible owners.

These proposals are a lazy attempt to solve problems that do not exist as is evidenced by the tardy response from parish councils.

Asking for a response from the police cannot be used used as an argument for this imposition as the police will be only to pleased to hand over a task that they do not want.

The existing laws do not require changing only using,

Kindest

Woodbridge

Suffolk

IP12 1SS

From: Sent: 20 September 2017 20:16 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation

Hello,

I think this is a fair oder, however the schedule is not specific enough. At the moment it reads "All sports grounds, fields, greens and pitches when in use as such." it should be more specific "All sports grounds, sports fields, bowling greens and sports pitches when in use as such" otherwise it will get read as "all fields" etc.

Thanks

Saddlemakers Lane

IP12 1LZ

From:

Sent: 20 September 2017 22:18 To: Environment Subject: Proposed Public Space Protection Orders

Sir/Madam,

I write with regards to the above as the owner of a well controlled, six year old Labradoddle.

I always clear up after my dog and get annoyed with people who don’t. Whilst I acknowledge and agree that dogs need to be on leads in certain circumstances and in certain areas, giving my dog controlled freedom, off the lead, is one of the things I enjoy most about having a dog. Consequent to this I am disappointed that I am not, as a responsible dog owner, trusted by the council to decide where and when my dog should be on a lead.

This being so, I object to some of the the measures, particularly some of the “Dogs on Leads (General)", that you are proposing and it seems to me that you are taking the”soft option” by punishing all dog owners for the poor behaviour of a few.

In conclusion I imagine that some of the decision making Councillors are probably not dog owners and consequently they have no idea of the pleasure having a dog gives and how beneficial they are to their owners health and wellbeing. These owners will be disappointed If the proposals are ratified and subsequently I hope the Council see’s fit to reconsider them.

Regards

From: Sent: 21 September 2017 08:52 To: Environment Cc: Subject: Proposed PSPOs relating to dogs

I wish to make representation in connection with your review of PSPOs and dogs.

Whilst I understand that fouling by dogs is a legitimate concern of residents and its control has long been a responsibility of district councils, several of the proposed measures seem excessive and in most cases there is little actual evidence of need or demand for them.

The proposed control at Shingle Street is a good example. What evidence do you actually have that dogs off-lead are impacting ground-nesting birds in significant numbers in this area? As a regular walker in this area I have observed very few dogs ranging beyond the control of owners. This is introducing a law with a potentially severe penalty where there is no verified need. It was never intended that the PSPOs be used in place of proper legislation for the protection of wildlife. Such legislation is available and more appropriate where wildlife protection is needed.

The proposed 'Dogs on leads' measure is far too general and too vague. It does not delineate sufficiently the space it applies to and expressions such as 'when in use as such' are too open to dispute. Take for example the Melton playing field. Is it intended that a few chaps having a kick around on the all weather pitch at the south end preclude dog walkers walking dogs off-lead at the north end of the playing field which is out of sight of the all-weather pitch but definitely part of the same public open space?

Your consultation with Parish Councils has revealed little evidence of demand. My understanding is that the objection of sports players to dogs relates to finding the pitches fouled which this order will do nothing to control. What real evidence is there that dogs running riot during play, is of such a significant nuisance, that this order is needed?

Responsible owners know well the behaviour of their particular dog and will not risk their dog interfering with the amenity of others or risk it running onto a road. It is not reasonable to damage the amenity of responsible dog owners because of an unspecified risk from a few irresponsible owners who will in any case have little regard for the new laws.

Exercising dogs off the lead is an important part of responsible dog ownership. It contributes to improved public health and is key to maintaining a well mannered dog. Restricting the places where these activities have traditionally taken place is contrary to this and will increase the number of car journeys as owners are forced to drive to areas without restriction.

There is significant risk here in the use of PSPOs being pushed further and further from their original purpose. Excessive and unnecessary rules and regulations damage the amenity of life in Suffolk Coastal and we must not be tempted down this line of action.

Yours sincerely From: Sent: 21 September 2017 09:26 To: Environment Subject: dogs on leads. PROTEST.

I would like to register my protest, on such actions singling out dog owners by having to keep there dogs on leads, this is just an attack on decent people, who love there animals and are responsible about where and when they keep there dog on a lead. responsible dog owners already look after beaches, breading grounds, and sport fields and similar areas and love those areas.( and keep there dogs on leads anyway in those areas) you don't need a law...

GO AFTER THE PEOPLE THAT DONT CARE , the scum drug dealers etc. the people that used there dogs as a weapon or status symbol

There are rouge people out there not animals.... is your next step trying to tax dog owners.... ??? for poo box collection ? the council should be worrying and doing more about animal theft in the country, and supporting and giving more protection to animals, how much do you do actually really do ,,,,, very little you leave it to others such as the rspca.

16:10hrs, 21 st September 2017

Notes of telephone conversation with , Felixstowe Sea Angling Society) Phone:

Felixstowe Sea Angling Society – in existence 1909 – to the present – responsible fishing – Rules covering behaviour and activities, including clearing up rubbish and general respect for environment. The club’s fishing season normally runs from Sept 1st to July 30th – 2 matches per month – 20 & 30 people on average – on different beaches, (not just Landguard).

1. Item 3 on the Landguard point list needs moving to the part of the list which applies only to the nature reserve. (The northern half of the area referred to in the proposed order is mainly concrete, so is unlikely to attract ground nesting species and in any case, is not in the Nature Reserve.

2. Would to see some protection against over zealous application of this rule – i.e. prohibited areas restricted both in size and in time period to what is absolutely necessary to protect the ground nesting species during the breeding season, and not extended ad-hoc to wider areas for no good reason. What guarantees can be provided to ensure this does not happen? Perhaps some wording to specify “breeding season” only?

From: ] Sent: 21 September 2017 10:43 To: Environment Subject: Proposed PSPO

Dear Sirs

I refer to your proposed PSPO.

Whilst I would have no objection to the proposals that replace existing orders or protect areas that are used by children, I have issues with two of the proposals.

The first is the proposal to extend the area covered by an order at Landguard. I believe this is totally unnecessary and will have an adverse affect on a lot of dog walkers who enjoy this area. This area is used by people from the caravan parks who have no large areas in which to exercise their dogs off-lead and by a lot of elderly people in the town who meet up with their friends and dogs to socialise. The area is mostly used by dog walkers and no other activities are affected by dogs running loose. I am sure no one would object to keeping their dogs on leads in the nature reserve but to include the proposed area is excessive.

The second proposal refers to the dogs on leads (general provisions). I can understand the thinking behind most of the areas described but have real issues with proposal 4 covering sports grounds, field etc. when in use. There are many areas that have pitches marked out that are also used by people exercising their dogs, for example the Grove or the recreation ground at Trimley. If the pitches are being used for an official match, dog walkers already keep their animals clear of the games. However, what would be the situation if the pitches are being used for an unofficial kick about or similar? Even if an official match is taking place, it would seem unreasonable to expect a dog walker to have their dog on a lead if the game is some half a mile away such as is possible on the Grove.

To keep a dog healthy, it is necessary to make sure it has sufficient exercise. In general this has to be by letting the dog run free so that it can get rid of its energy. This makes sure that the dog is less inclined to have behavioural problems. A dog running free is net necessarily out of control as most responsible owners will have trained their dog to came back when called.

I believe the proposals will have a serious adverse affect on local dog owners and should not be implemented.

Yours faithfully

Felixstowe Dog Training Club

9 Chaucer Road

Felixstowe

From: Sent: 21 September 2017 11:14 To: Subject: PROPOSED PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDER Formal response Reference to: Proposed Public Space Protection Order 2017/12 – Dogs on Leads (General) Response from the Easton Harriers Hunt Committee. 19th September 2017 We would like to formally provide a comment on the draft of the proposed changes to the Public Space Protection Order regarding Dogs on Leads (General) and have our opposition to this change noted and included in any discussion at Suffolk Coastal District Council. The Easton Harriers Hunt has had its Kennels in the village of Easton since 1920 and has been exercising the Hounds 6 days a week from the Kennels. This requires the Hounds to go along the road until they reach land which the kind local landowner has allowed the Hounds to be exercised on for years.

Hounds operate as a pack together and as such stick close together and are well trained and controlled by the Huntsman and other Hunt Members whilst exercising every day. It is wholly impractical for the pack of Hounds to be taken on individual leads whilst exercising.

There is also a major issue regarding this draft with respect to Hounds operating on Hunting days. Hounds may have to cross roads and go down a road/highway for a short distance to get on to land where trails are laid.

A similar problem will exist for all other working dogs such as Gun dogs, Sheep dogs and Cattle dogs who will inevitably have to go along or cross highways during a working day. They will not be able to do their job if on a lead ie a sheep dog cannot get round sheep if held on a lead – the handler is simply not fast enough.

Suffolk Coastal District Council may suggest that there is not enough livestock being moved on roads with the use of working dogs. It is true that most livestock is now moved over any distance in a vehicle but there will always be locations where livestock has to be moved across or down highways for short distances which will be required to be managed by dogs that would not be possible by humans or vehicles.

Proposal:- We would like to propose an EXEMPTION be applied to this Order, if adopted, that would exempt all Sporting and Working Dogs. This would then allow Hounds and Farm Working Dogs to be able to continue their work. Without such an exemption, we fear that it would result in the end of the Easton Harriers Hunt Kennels existing. The Committee of The Easton Harriers Hunt Member of the Committee of The Easton Harriers Hunt

From Sent: 21 September 2017 13:36 To: Environment Subject: Dog walking restrictions Felixstowe Beach and Landguard Common

Please note my objections to the proposed dog walking restrictions.

Regards

From: ] Sent: 21 September 2017 13:12 To: Environment Subject: Proposed restrictions for dog walkers in Felixstowe

To whom it may concern

I would like to make known my opposition to the proposed rather draconian measures to restrict the walking of dogs in Felixstowe both on the beach and on Landguard Common. I have walked my dog for 30 years in Felixstowe and have always abided by the rules of keeping it under control in a public place and clearing up after it. Myself and similar law abiding residents in the area face being severely restricted and can only assume that we are being penalised for the behaviour of a minority of inconsiderate dog walkers.

It would seem that the person behind these plans is not in favour of dogs at all!

I would ask you to reconsider these proposals for the sake of the many law abiding dog walkers who live in Felixstowe. Yours faithfully Sent from my iPad

From: Blythburgh Parish Council [ Sent: 21 September 2017 15:03 To: Environment Subject: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION

Dear

Blythburgh Parish Council reviewed the consulatation documentations and summarised its views as follows

Dogs on leads, beach south of Shingle Street - Supports this proposal.

Dogs in children's play areas; In general supports this proposal. Restricted area: Does it need to specify that access is controlled by a gate or similar? Does not the term 'fenced area' cover the requirement?

Dog fouling - Supports this proposal.

Exclusion of dogs on Aldeburgh beach - Supports this proposal.

Exclusion of dogs on Felixstowe beach - Supports this proposal.

Dogs on leads (general provisions) – Supports this proposal. Agreed with you comments that most dog owners are responsible. However there are issues with irresponsible dog owners who make people feel uncomfortable by allowing there dogs to roam uncontrolled spoiling their enjoyment of the open spaces / facilities available

Landguard Point nature reserve – Supports this proposal. regards

Clerk to Blythburgh with Bulcamp & Hinton Parish Council telephone;

From ] Sent: 21 September 2017 17:15 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads at Languard common

Dear Sir

We have seen the recent proposal for dogs to be kept on short leads on the whole of Languard Common and beaches throughout the year.

My husband and I are responsible dog owners who respect and enjoy these open spaces. We have waiked our various dogs for over 30 years off the lead where appropriate, letting them run on the Common and go on the beach and in the sea during the winter months. Other places like the Grove are often too muddy in the winter.

We have always kept a close eye on them, never letting them cause any damage or nuisance and religiously clearing up faeces up and placing it in the appropriate bins.

We feel that those of us who are responsible pet owners are being penalised in respect of those who do not behave accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Felixstowe

IP11 7RS

From: ] Sent: 21 September 2017 18:20 To: Environment Subject: Land guard dog restrictions

I would like to object to the proposed restrictions for dog owners at land guard common and the surrounding area. As a Felixstowe resident I often pick up litter left by inconsiderate members of the public as I walk my dog in the area. Their are very few places as it is to exercise dogs in the open and as long as dog owners clean up after their animals I cannot see what problem they cause.

Yours sincerely

From: ] Sent: 21 September 2017 20:06 To: Environment Subject: Proposal: Public Space Protection Order - Beach south of Shingle Street

To whom it may concern

The beach south of Shingle Street is almost deserted throughout the year. You may see the odd fisherman, beachcomber and people who have walked over the marshes from Alderton village exercising their dogs and to have a swim.

You state: 'This is a new proposal to protect ground nesting birds' (from dogs). I wonder who has seen all these ground nesting birds. I have lived in Alderton for many decades (I'm aged 70) and have walked across the marshes and along the beach countless times. I have not seen a single bird's nest since the late 1960s when the last of the skylarks were wiped out by predation. The avocet's nest (mentioned below) is a notable exception.

The beach is an exposed area with no natural cover. So any bird's nest would be spotted quickly by a crow; herring gull; buzzard; sparrow hawk; kestrel etc and destroyed. Also, those great destroyers of ground nesting birds' nests, the badger and domestic cat, would both be on the prowl. If any eggs survived and hatched out; the chicks would fall prey to one of the above predators of which there is an abundance in the area.

There was an isolated incident in July 2016 when a visiting, unruly, spaniel ravaged an avocet's nest, by the sea wall, killing the two chicks. To my knowledge, this is the only case that has ever been reported. I think to place restrictions for all dogs, for 6 months of the year for this one incident, is both unfair and displays a degree of ignorance by the perpetrators of this proposal. It's a bit like banning all National Hunt Racing on the death of a horse or banning motor car racing on the death of a driver.

Also, I find it incredulous to link Landguard Nature Reserve and the area of beach south of Shingle Street together. One is a nature reserve and the other, a very sparsely vegetated, lifeless beach.

To conclude, this proposal is un-researched, lacks substantial on-going evidence, and is, I believe, unnecessary. With the above in mind, I hope the Public Space Protection Order for the Beach South of Shingle Street will not be enacted.

Kind regards,

Alderton

Woodbridge

IP12 3DE

From: ] Sent: 22 September 2017 01:06 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders - Statutory Consultation

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see below my comments on the PSPO's proposed for the SCDC area.

Dogs on leads, beach south of Shingle Street - I am in favour of this proposal as it will protect ground nesting birds during the nesting season.

Dogs in children's play areas - I am in favour of dogs, except exempt dogs, being excluded from designated children's play areas. This will allow children to play safely without the risk of coming in to contact with dogs that might bite or contracting toxocariases from dog faeces, or being knocked over by dogs running around.

Dogs on leads (general provisions) - in areas specified - I am in favour of all dogs being kept on leads and under close control in the areas specified. I don't think there should be any exemptions. My mother has a Guide Dog which she keeps on a lead, except when having a free run, and under close control. I think that keeping dogs on leads and under close control in these areas will prevent dogs from being involved with accidents with motor vehicles and pedal cycles, and hopefully reduce the amount of dog fouling incidents.

If this proposal is accepted I think that councils should seek to provide, as soon as possible, designated fenced dog exercise areas within any suitable restricted areas.

Landguard Point nature reserve - I am in favour of any controls to protect ground nesting birds and other wildlife in the nature reserve.

Yours faithfully,

Leiston,

IP16 4AN

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 06:52 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation

Hi,

I would like to provide input to the Public Space Protection Order, in particular I relation to dogs on Felixstowe beach.

I have read, and listened to much debate in this area, and as a dog owner am strongly in favour of retaining the existing partial ban on Felixstowe beach.

There are over 2 miles of beach, and having part of it that is dog free for people who don’t want to mix with dogs is appropriate, whilst leaving part of the beach accessible for dogs and their owners.

Banning dogs from all of the beach would not only be detrimental to the dogs and their owners, but to local business who benefit from the many people that bring their dogs to Felixstowe for a walk and then use local services, many of which make I possible to sit outside with dogs and have a drink/meal, I really do believe local business would suffer if dogs were banned from all the beach.

I have also heard a suggestion that banning dogs during daytime hours from all of the beach would be appropriate – again, this would damage business as visitors tend to come during these times, but also we have many retired and disabled dog owners who walk all day, not to mention the many shift workers in the town due to the towns biggest employer being the dock.

I am not sure what banning dogs would achieve, in the main the “mess” on the beach is not left by dogs, I always pick up after my dogs and if when picking up I do find other dog mess I will pick that up at the same time, I know many other owners with the same approach, I see far more mess on the beach left by fishermen and tourists. After a good fishing night the beach is strewn with newspaper from wrapping bait, left over beer cans, and in the more disgusting cases human waste of ten complete with toilet tissue. Monday mornings after a sunny Sunday the beach is strewn with the remnants of family picnics, far more than all the dog mess in Felixstowe added together.

One of the things I have always loved about Felixstowe is it’s inclusivity, we have plenty of beach resource, let’s share this resource as we do today, there is plenty of beach for everyone to enjoy.

On a side note, I support dogs on the lead at Landguard, especially during the breeding season, and already lead ,my dogs in this area.

Regards,

Felixstowe

From Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 08:26 AM GMT Standard Time To: PSPO Consultation Cc: Subject: Exclusion of Dogs from Felixstowe Beach

Cllr Tracey Green

District and Town Councillor

Felixstowe West

Proposed Public Space Protection Order

Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014

2017/11 Exclusion of Dogs from Felixstowe Beach

I wish to provide the following comments:

• I would like to see the restricted area expanded to apply to the area of beach northwards from Manor Road to the groyne closest to Cobbolds Point. • The resort dynamics has changed in recent years. The increased popularity of the sea front is partially due to the long-term investment which SCDC has been part of. During summer peak season, the beaches are full and popular all along the sea front, no longer just between Spa Pavillion and Manwick Road. • Increased beach huts and ownership, the investment of Fludyers and the complete redevelopment of The Bartlett have meant that the Cobbolds Point end of the resort is just as popular as any other part. • At the other end of the sea front, the Martello development and again increase in Beach Hut ownership mean that this is also very popular beach front setting. No longer remote end of the resort where no one went – just as popular as any other part of the resort. • Dogs on beaches is always an emotional contentious issue yet SCDC and Town Council need to balance safeguarding for the very young or the frail. Dogs running loose at the waters edge amongst young toddlers and children and grandparents is not appropriate. • I appreciate the order is not regarding dog mess but families and visitors alike can be reassured that the dog free beaches will be as clean as practicable. • Dogs on beaches – yes, north of Cobbolds point down to Ferry End • Dogs on beaches – yes, south of Manor Road – from Languard Beach. • Dog free section will allow families and all members of the community, residents and visitors alike reassurance that we have dog free beaches from May to September.

Tracey

Tracey Green

District & Town Councillor

Felixstowe West

07759 218 476

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 12:37 To: Environment Subject: Proposed Dog control Bawdsey to Shingle St

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has come to my attention that there a proposal to require dogs to be on leads between East Lane and Shingle St from May to September each year. I was unable to attend the Parish Meeting where this was on the agenda. I have lived in the area for 50 years. In this time I have seen increasing restrictions placed on dog owners. Often in response to an individual or a few irresponsible owners.

I understand that the present proposal may be related to an incident last year regarding a pair of Avocets and their 2 chicks.

A committed birder I had been observing these birds and had remarked to other birders what a ridiculous place they had chosen for their nest. I was surprised they had not been the subject of predation. If my understanding is correct then this is a draconian response to the behaviour of one pair of birds.

I do not condone the reported behaviour of one dog owner involved in the above incident.

I walk my own dog frequently from East Lane. I happen to currently own a rather independent dog who needs to be on a lead all year round but have not felt my previous dogs to be out of my control when walking there off lead. There are many local owners whose dogs walk there under control.

Much of the coast south of Yarmouth is given over to the protection of wild life. Humans also inhabit this area and they too need protection from increasing legislation placing limitations on the few remaining areas that are accessible for their daily use.

I think the proposal is an unwarranted intrusion on local life. Yours sincerely, Bawdsey Lodge IP12 3AJ

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 12:59 To: Environment Subject: Landguard PSPO

Dear Sirs,

I write to express my support for the proposed legislation concerning control of dogs at Landguard Nature Reserve.

It is vitally important for migrant and breeding birds that they are not disturbed by uncontrolled dogs. I have personally been abused by dog walkers who have had their dogs off the lead within the Nature Reserve when pointing out the existing signboards.

I therefore fully support the need for tougher legislation.

Regards

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 13:41 To: Environment Subject: Dogs in leads PSPO

Sir/madam

I wish to oppose the part of the proposed PSPO fir dogs on leads in section 4 Sports Grounds & fields.

Certainly we don’t have a problem in Melton Recreation ground.

I don’t know how this would be enforced.

It is a step too far. The bad dog owners with the unruly dogs would flout the rules anyway.

Regards

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 13:51 To: Environment Subject: PROPOSED PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS

Ref: 2017/11 – Exclusion of Dogs from Felixstowe Beach, 2017/10– Landguard Point Nature Reserve

Dear Sir/Madam -

I'm writing in support of the above proposals. I believe they strike the correct balance for the needs of everyone who uses and enjoys the south seafront beach and Landguard Point nature reserve.

As a resident and a regular dog walker in this area I am appreciative of the fact that there are areas of the beach where I can exercise my dogs off-lead, while being fully aware and supportive of the restrictions in the designated nature reserve area, and the beach area north of Manwick Rd.

I feel that stronger restrictions would be detrimental to dog owners who use and enjoy this area, and so I would urge the council to support the proposals as shown in the published drafts.

Faithfully,

Manor Terrace,

Felixstowe.

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 14:31 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on beaches PSPO consultation.

I am an owner of small dog, who enjoys walking on promenade and beaches. We try to adhere to the rules at all times but find they are not always clear especially if you are visiting new beaches. I think it would be unfair to stop dogs on all promenade areas and beaches from running free. I would also say I have seen some irresponsible owners who do not follow the rules currently ,but I have also never seen a dog warden or any other person actually policing the area’s affected. So there is no point in creating PSPO’S if you don’t have staff to oversee the areas involved. I have also on two occasion’s this summer seen parents allow /encourage children to use beach area to go to the toilet on.( On the beach area where dogs are restricted during the summer.) Perhaps they too need guidelines visible .Dogs do need park area’s to be able to run free, so maybe we could have designated dog parks too.

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 13:45 To: Environment Cc:

Subject: PSPO Consultation

To whom it may concern at Suffolk District Council: Environmental Protection

As a responsible owner of a small dog, who moved to live in Felixstowe last October, I am responding to the consultation in good faith.

Where the existing bye laws and restrictions have been clear I have always adhered to them. They have not always been clear.

If the PSPO ‘s are to be effective and fair the issue of signage would have to be addressed. For example on the Promenade between The Spa and Cobbold Point it was only when new signage appeared in the Summer that I realised my dog should be on a lead on the Promenade at all times . I remain less clear about the rules on The Promenade between The Pier and Martello Tower where the signage appears to be on small signs on lampposts.

This is a crucial issue for visitors to the town. It was clear there was confusion. As a resident you become aware.

I would be most concerned if the restrictions were to become too restrictive, all dogs need some space to be able to run freely under proper supervision.

The Promenade and Landguard are indeed wonderful shared spaces and all should show consideration for others. I have had some concern about cyclists going either too fast or 2/3 abreast being a hazard both to dogs and humans. Thankfully a minority.

The space at Landguard Point is a wonderful community asset. As long as the signage is clear of course the Nature Reserve and the nesting birds should be protected. I hope the space will not be too much restricted, other of course when birds not realising the boundaries have nested in the unrestricted areas and temporary extensions to the restricted areas have been erected.

I have been impressed by the facilities available for dog owners to be able to dispose of bagged waste which does encourage responsible dog owners.

We are all aware that a minority of owners do not act responsibly and I am as appalled by their behaviour as non dog owners.

As long as the signage is clear I would welcome proper and fair enforcement and sanctions but am loathe to see the many punished and restricted because of the actions of a selfish minority.

My comments apply to the other areas affected < although I am less familiar with them.

Faithfully

Name: Email: Phone numbers:

Details: I have read the draft of the proposed Public Space protection Order relating to dogs on leads in Restricted areas, and then read the restricted areas to which it applies. It is clearly over the top, it will affect many dog owners who do not have their own gardens, and who are not able to get to open countryside. I accept that dogs messing on public spaces is anti-social. It is right to expect dog owners to clear up after their dogs. I also accept the restrictions on the nature reserves and public beaches in summer time. To try and stop dog owners from exercising their dogs on parks , roads, footpaths and the like is completely unfair.

From: ] Sent: 22 September 2017 15:04 To: Environment Cc:

Subject: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS CONSULTATION HPC RECOMMENDATION Importance: High

Hacheston Parish Council Recommendation

HPC discussed the PSPO consultation at its full meeting on 04/09/2017 and decided that if dogs would be required to be on leads for every public space, to include “all sports grounds, fields, greens and pitches when in use as such” and if interpreted to include use of our village green “Fairfield Green”, then this PSPO should be opposed. The village green is owned by a registered charity and is thus private property. It is used by village residents and this would cause a problem as residents might no longer be allowed to let their dogs roam freely. HPC would object to the issuance of this PSPO without modification.

However, SCDC has confirmed that this wording is intended to apply to areas marked out for formal sporting uses such as football pitches, bowling greens, cricket pitches, etc., whilst they are actually in use for the purpose of organised sports (i.e. not just children enjoying a casual “kickabout”) and has stated that it is not intended to apply to “greens” in any broader sense (like village greens, or indeed Hacheston Village Green). Therefore HPC would have no objection.

HPC requests that the current wording, being ambiguous and open to misinterpretation, is improved to remove this ambiguity and to make this clear, and to review the “Dogs on Leads (general)” proposal comprehensively in order to address these points.

The enclosed play area would be protected as per your draft order “2017/13 – Dogs in Children’s Play Areas” with which HPC is in agreement.

HPC also decided on 04/09/2017 to seek an explanation from SCDC Environmental Protection about these proposals and would like to thank Andrew Reynolds for his clarifications.

Bartholomew Hall

On behalf of Hacheston Parish Council

Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer

Hacheston Parish Council

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 15:49 To: Environment Subject: Dogs in leads PSPO

Sir/madam

I wish to oppose the part of the proposed PSPO fir dogs on leads in section 4 Sports Grounds & fields.

This is a ridiculous notion. The good dog owners (the majority) and their dogs would have a miserable time, and the bad dog owners will just carry on as usual - and not get caught of course - they never do!

Rather than waste money on bringing in yet more rules and regulations, I suggest you invest some time and money in rooting out the bad dog owners now, and then there won't be a problem anyway.

This is just another example of the nanny state interfering and making everyone suffer and pay the price for those few that continue to cause a problem.

Regards

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 16:03 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on the beach

Dear sir/madam,

I am writing in regards to the new proposed dog laws and the importance of allowing dogs on the beach for everyone.

As a disabled dog owner and visitor to the area, we (my partner and I) regularly visit the Suffolk coastal areas in particular Felixstowe (at least twice a week) to walk our dog along the prom and on the beach. During this time we will visit local businesses including the market, supporting the local community.

At present the current situation allowing dogs on the beach in certain areas, works extremely well. There is something for everyone, whose who want to enjoy the beach with a dog with their family and those who prefer to be dog free. Plenty of space for everyone to enjoy regardless of your preference.

A dog is very much part of the family for children and adults alike, having the chance to play with them on the beach and in the water creates bonds, friendship, confidence and respect.

A dog enjoys but most importantly needs the chance to gain the benefits from being allowed on the beach and off the lead (depending on the dog).

Having a time set on when dogs are allowed on the beach would make it extremely difficult for the disabled and the elderly, whom of which feel safer during the day. Many disabled persons have many health issues and restricting them to certain hours would cause many health problems. Also it will reduce the trade to local businesses.

Dogs who are with disabled people are vital and deserve to have time on the beach, they are doing us a great service, don't take this enjoyment away from them.

There are not many places a disabled person can take their dog, Felixstowe and other coastal areas are ideal for both the human and the dog.

As well as saying this, there is more rubbish on the ground where dogs are not allowed on the beach, which is an eyesore and environmental hazards. We are always taking rubbish out of our dogs mouth including cigarette butts. Many dog owners do clear up after themselves and their dogs leaving the environment as we find it.

The dog areas seem to be more friendly and helpfully, giving it a very warm relaxed atmosphere.

I would be happy to discuss these issues in greater depth, if you wish to contact me.

Kind regards

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 18:21 To: Environment Cc:

Subject: RE: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION

Dear Environment Team,

On behalf of Felixstowe Town Council, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft PSPOs proposals.

The Town Council considered this consultation at its meeting of 13 September. In response, Council wishes to submit the following:

Felixstowe Town Council fully supports the Orders relating to gated Children’s Play Areas, Dog Fouling and Landguard Point Nature Reserve .

With regards to the Exclusion of Dogs from Felixstowe Beach , Council notes that its earlier recommendation (to describe an area of the beach that was linked to physical markers rather than imaginary lines) has been included. However, in discussing the purpose of this Order, the Council would like SCDC to consider whether it can better balance the needs of dog-owners and other beach users. Given the increased popularity of the resort in recent times, Council asks SCDC to consider whether the area of beach excluding dogs between 1 May – 30 September each year should be further extended. With the understanding that a PSPO can specify the time of the day during which it is active, Council asks SCDC to consider arrangements for a PSPO covering an area of the beach bounded by the length of the prom from Cobbold’s Point to Manor End which excludes dogs from the beach from 10am – 6pm between 1 May and 30 September each year. Council believes that this could offer other beach users greater choice at peak times as well as provide an opportunity dog-owners to take their dogs for walks in the mornings and evenings on beaches that were previously out of bounds during those months.

In respect of the Dogs on Leads (General) PSPO, Council was concerned that this was too general as currently drafted and could be considered inappropriate for dog-walkers at popular locations such as Eastward Ho, Brackenbury Cliffs and the allotments. Council therefore asks SCDC to consider holding this Order back for further consideration with a view to creating a localised Order for Felixstowe.

Council was also keen to learn more about proposals for public information, signage and enforcement and seeks assurances from SCDC that all signage will be refreshed in order to provide the public with appropriate information and outdated signs removed.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment, we look forward to hearing more in due course.

Kind regards,

Town Clerk, Felixstowe Town Council, Town Hall, Felixstowe, Suffolk. IP11 2AG

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 17:01 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on Shingle Street Beach - objection to proposed plans

Having read the reasons for the new restrictions on beaches, I would like to put forward my objection to this.

I understand on busy beaches like Felixstowe an Aldeburgh but Shingle Street is a quiet beach where you may meet one other person on a walk even in the summer. It is not populated by families as for the most part it is not safe to swim.

Leave this beach for people to walk their dogs off leads. If every area where dogs are walked ends up requiring leads their quality of life is reduced.

Regards

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 17:33 To: Environment Subject: PSPO Consultation / Dogs

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

The consultation didn't start well and there has been little information provided to the public on which to base a response. There has been an assessment made for each PSPO but none presented to the public (the basis on which the council believes Section 59 is justified). Of the eleven responses received, only two councils wanted any controls and those on playing fields. Nevertheless, the council has pressed on with proposals which I consider to be highly over the top and somewhat draconian. As such, I think this is a highly flawed consultation but have chosen to respond to the broad thrust.

On children's play areas, I understand why this seems sensible but would like to know what has prompted this. It also does not help parents who have a dog and want to take their pet with them while they take their child to a play area.

Regarding the orders setting out restrictions on activities at Shingle Street , I understand the importance of protecting the nesting activities of birds. What is not clear is why a PSPO is the appropriate instrument to undertake this and indeed whether it is lawful to rely on this. The 2014 Act concerns Anti Social Behaviour and specifically refers to the quality of life of those in the locality. It does not refer to wildlife. If the council believes that the quality of wildlife can be cited as a reason to create this PSPO with the risk of a criminal offence to the owner of a dog, it is inexplicable that there are exemptions. In both events, using byelaws specifically relating to protecting wildlife would be more suitable, though I understand it is easier for the council to issue fines.

I make the same points regarding Landguard Nature Reserve and go further. I welcome the initiative to care for the wildlife there. There are byelaws already in place. I ask the council to reconsider the level of activities designated to be no longer allowed and proposed controls with a better public justification and explanation of why all the measures are necessary.

Re: Aldeburgh, this is the same control as previously but it will be easier to enforce.

Can you explain why you have ignored Thorpeness in this consultation?

Re: Felixstowe, this area has been extended significantly without a rationale presented but there are still plenty of areas to exercise a dog on this stretch of the beach. re: dog fouling, this is the same control as previously but it will be easier to enforce. re: dogs on leads general provisions, these are excessive proposals again with no rationale or justification presented for any of them. None should be adopted, though note my comments on Sections 4, 5 and 6

Section 1 - under a longstanding law, owners are generally liable for the behaviour of their dogs and can also be liable for damages; as such, while it is rare to see dogs off the lead on well-used roads, it is more common to see on roads with very little traffic;

Section 2 and 3 - similar comments apply; there are areas where village greens are right next to the highway so similar common sense needed; on pedestrianised areas; I assume Woodbridge Town Council has made a particular reference to the Thoroughfare so they should apply for a specific PSPO. Section 4 - I would suggest the club or grounds authority or parish/town council needs to apply on a case by case basis; a lot of the sports grounds are in effect private grounds, albeit they may be on a lease from the council; there is also the fact that the grounds tend to be a lot larger than the pitches being used and this blanket ban seems over the top;

Section 5 - I would expect much of these are private land (especially churchyards) so this should be left to the organisations that run these areas. On cemeteries, have problems been reported?

Section 6 - I would suggest each allotment users' association would need to consider and apply for a pspo if felt necessary.

It matters for local residents that we have an appropriate balance. Dogs out of control can be distressing for others. However, we need to strike the right balance and justify why huge changes in controls are needed to residents and to tourists.

Yours sincerely,

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 18:17 To: Environment Subject: PSPOs

Sirs

Regarding the PSPO proposals:

I have no problem with most of the proposals as they are common sense HOWEVER I would like to express my views on one proposal:

Dogs on leads - "All sports grounds, fields, greens and pitches when in use as such". It is unclear whether this would be while matches are actually being played (common sense to keep dogs on leads anyway) or whether it would apply 24/7 for the 10 months of the football season. If the latter, it would cause a lot of problems for a lot of people.

I take my dog to Kirton Recreation ground every day, all year round, where she chases a ball, which gives her the exercise which she, and all dogs need. We also go for walks on local footpaths which give her exercise but don't allow her to run around. In the winter, when the footpaths sometimes become too muddy and wet, the recreation ground, which drains quickly and is always accessible, is the only place for owners to take their dogs. Apart from summer, only dogs and their owners are on the recreation ground so cause no problems to other members of the public

I may be incorrectly presuming that Kirton Recreation ground is affected by the proposals, I certainly hope so, but I need to express my concern that, if we can't take our dogs there, off-lead, it is going to cause a big problem to many dog-owners and to many dogs who will not get the exercise they need which, in turn, could result in behavioral problems.

Si IF the proposals would apply 24/7 for the 10 months of the football season, please reconsider.

Thank you for your consideration.

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 18:14 To: Environment Subject: Response to public consultation on dogs in public places

We have carefully read the background and the draft PSPOs and would like to make the following comments. We support the general principle of transferring the current bylaws to PSPOs and hope that these will be effectively enforced.

Children's play areas As grandparents who often take young children to play areas so we strongly support this measure. However it does not go far enough as several of the play areas are not actually fenced. Areas of particular concern are Martello Park on the Felixstowe sea front and Elmhurst park in Woodbridge. We have had to ask dog owners to put their dogs on leads in Martello Park on several occasions. This needs to be addressed, either through the PSPO or by other means.

Dogs on leads, general provision We strongly support this measure, as we frequently experience situations in which dogs not on a lead cause us annoyance. We have read the schedule item 1 carefully and are concerned that it may not cover cycle paths. I (Keith) was knocked off my bike by a loose dog on Pilboroughs Walk cycle path in Kesgrave and suffered two broken ribs as a result. There are many cycle paths in Kesgrave and Martlesham Heath which should be included in the order. It is also not clear to us whether the Felixstowe promenade is covered by the PSPO. This is another place where it is our experience that dogs not on at least a short lead cause nuisance and also pose a risk to our grandchildren as went can never know how a dog is going to behave if it approaches us or the children. We think the requirement in clause 4 should apply at all times. We often take our grandchildren onto the green at Martlesham Heath, where there is a seldom used cricket pitch, but we have to be constantly vigilant because dog owners frequently let their dogs run loose on the green. Similarly, there is a football pitch of sorts on the Broke Hall recreation ground, which also has an unfenced play ground. It is our opinion that the restriction should apply to the whole recreation ground at all times. Felixstowe Beach We support the extension of the restricted area but think it should extend all the way to Cobbold Point as many families use the beach by Undercliffe Road due to the convenient parking, and the period should be extended to run from 1st April to 31st October as there are many young children using the beach on nice days in the spring and autumn.

We fully support all the other measures proposed by the Council.

Yours faithfully Ipswich IP3 8SD

From: Town Clerk [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: 22 September 2017 18:21 To: Environment Cc: Subject: RE: PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDERS - FOR CONSULTATION Dear Environment Team,

On behalf of Felixstowe Town Council, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft PSPOs proposals.

The Town Council considered this consultation at its meeting of 13 September. In response, Council wishes to submit the following:

Felixstowe Town Council fully supports the Orders relating to gated Children’s Play Areas, Dog Fouling and Landguard Point Nature Reserve .

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment, we look forward to hearing more in due course.

Kind regards,

Town Clerk Felixstowe Town Council Town Hall, Felixstowe, Suffolk. IP11 2AG Telephone: 01394 282086

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 18:22 To: Environment Subject: Public space protection order/ Shingle Street to Bawdsey beach.

Dear

I write in reference to the above and your possible implementation of the above order south from Shingle street as highlighted on your plan.

I fully understand and sympathise with the need to protect ground nesting birds which I believe this particular order is aimed at for this stretch of coast, however in this case I feel it is rather heavy handed and detrimental to the many people who use this Beach all year round and gain much pleasure from exercising their dogs both on the beach and in our case in the sea as well.

I have lived in Bawdsey for 14 years a short time span, but there are many people locally who have exercised their dogs on this beach for much much longer who have never had these restrictions placed upon them but also understand and respect the environment they use and now will suddenly find that what they have taken great pleasure in doing will now become a criminal act for 5 months of the year.

Yes, there was an unfortunate incident last year where a dog walker let their dog get out of control and killed some Avocet chicks and I was saddened and dismayed to hear this, it could have quite easily been one of my dogs and the response I understand from the owner was rather dismissive and ignorant or it may have just been embarrasment.

What particularly concerns me about this proposal for the beach from Shingle street right down to the fresh water reservoirs is that there appears to have been no proper environmental survey undertaken and no consideration as to providing alternatives, the Beach to the South of East lane is technically inaccessible now, unless one trespasses and even then for older people the means available onto it are impossible.

We live in an age rightly or wrongly where we are encouraging people to take more exercise and improve their mental health, yet if you were to apply this order people might be forced into their cars in order to drive to exercise their dogs, which environmentally is a somewhat counter productive exercise.

Bawdsey actually has a very limited amount of public footpaths and in order to get around one is forced to walk on the road, at times this can be rather dangerous, particularly with the amount of large machinery that has to move around,coaches serving Bawdsey Manor and the increase of traffic movements resulting from works associated with the East Anglian wind farms as well as visitors.

I think you will find few dog walkers who will have scant disregard for the plight of ground nesting birds as well as the rare flora that flourishes and struggles at the same time on this beautiful stretch of coast, but these areas will also be subject to the absent minded walker, fisherman or beach visitor who will casually walk through and disturb them without realising their impact, are we to implement a walker's restriction as well ?...... of course not.

I appreciate it is very easy for me to make criticism and objection to your proposals so perhaps below I can make some suggestions that you can consider that might help influence your decision making.

1 Carry out a full environmental survey of this particular designated site and identify what is at risk and what the particular pressures are. This may involve resources that I appreciate that you do not have or are extremely scarce, but there may be possibilities that you could rely on, external help from organisations such as the "Suffolk Wildlife Trust" RSPB, Suffolk Coast and Heaths, Natural England or even volunteers. It is vital that this is done before you put wholesale restrictions in place on areas where it need not be in place for example the area of beach between low and high tide.

2 Look at what alternatives you could provide to dog walkers that in themselves are not detrimental and impact on the environment eg driving! I have mentioned above no proper access to the beach to the south of East Lane. You could look to put into place lower speed restrictions in this Parish so it is safe for walkers and their dogs to access the one footpath which leads to a point where the old beach access was and where we could perhaps more freely exercise our dogs. This is subject to some new steps being installed.

For Parish councils such as Bawdsey there is often red tape that we need to struggle through in order to get speed restrictions in place, I'm sure as head of Environmental services you are perhaps better placed to argue a case of support for such restrictions which in turn would help take pressure away from the area under proposed designation and its not just dog walkers this would benefit.

3. Educating the public and in this case dog walkers as to why you have this order in place at certain times of the year, this might involve three information boards placed strategically at both ends and where the footpath joins from Alderton. The signs should be informative and visual about the restrictions and what is at risk from disturbance and perhaps encourage people that we are all custodians of this coast. While I personally am not a great fan of too much street furniture I do believe it will help encourage co-operation in this case and not hang a threat over the public of prosecution, you and I also both know it would be a hard one to police so what is the point?

4 Fencing off areas of the beach considered ground nesting sites for birds, higher up on the shingle ridges as well as the areas where there is brackish water considered beneficial. I am suggesting the use of light weight cleft Chesnut paling which can easily be rolled out and erected and removed quite easily out of season, its significance along with an informative notice would actually highlight the pressures that human activity places on the coastline, create greater awareness and help to gain public support and even perhaps create indirect unofficial wardens in dog walkers, fisherman etc.

To Conclude I hope very much that you can see your way to not having the need to implement this order for this particular piece of Coast till you have at least explored its impact and can perhaps put in place some of the suggestions I have made to ease the loss for people who have for many generations gained year round pleasure from this particular beach exercising freely with their dogs.

We down here on the Peninsula do a tremendous service to Suffolk in helping to retain its attractiveness and pulling income in through visitors but this in turn also places tremendous strain on the environment, I hope I have made a worthwhile case for perhaps relieving the pressure valve on certain sensitive areas opening others up and making it a safer and more accessible place for residents and visitors alike as well as protecting its flora and fauna.

Yours Sincerely, Bawdsey

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 18:41 To: Environment Cc: Stuart Bird; Stephen Bloomfield; Peter Coleman; Michael Deacon; Steve Gallant; Tracey Green; Doreen Savage; Andy Smith Subject: Proposed PSPO for East Suffolk DC

Good Evening,

I wish to make the following comments about the proposed order.

1 In general, the provisions relating to the beach at Felixstowe, highways and pedestrian footways, together with Landguard Nature Reserve are reasonable.

2 The measures requiring dogs to be on leads and under close control in "All sports grounds, fields, greens and pitches when in use as such" require clarification. In particular what are fields and greens and when are fields and greens in use? Does this mean at all times for open greens, when one other person is present or when numerous people are present? As a responsible dog owner but one who allows my dog off her lead to play with her ball in open spaces, (with no problems over 3 years), I am concerned that this proposed provision is excessive and punitive to those with well behaved dogs. I would ask for further clarification and also a change in the wording to "on a lead or under close control" for activities at these areas.

3 I am not convinced that you have satisfied the needs for all parts of the order, particularly in respect of dogs on leads as your own website states of the consultation of Town and Parish Councils " We received 11 responses in total: no issues were identified in 3 of the responses, others were generally in favour of maintaining existing controls and 2 raised concerns about dog fouling on sports pitches and play areas." The only mention of concerns is in relation to "dog fouling".

Yours sincerely,

Felixstowe, IP11 9LY

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 19:08 To: Environment Subject: Re: Statutory Consultation,Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014,Public Space Protection Orders – Dog Controls in the Suffolk Coastal District

Dear Sirs,

I write in response to your invitation for me to comment on your proposed new Public Space Protection Orders with respect to dogs.

Over recent years there has been a massive increase in the dog population in East Suffolk and also it is now common for an owner to take several dogs with him/her into public spaces. More often than not these dogs are off lead and running about without any signs of control. Although a minority of dogs do seem to be well controlled, sadly, very few owners seem to be able to control their dogs once off their lead and it is even more difficult for an untrained owner or dog walker to control several dogs.

You state in your cover letter that dogs have rights. I am not sure what those "doggy-rights" are or even if you are correct in stating this. in UK it is human beings who have protection through human rights and since the 19th century when the Lord of the Manor could set his dogs on whoever he wished and set gin traps to deter intruders, the law has moved considerably towards protecting the general public. For example, it is now not legal to cause harm to anyone entering one's property even if it is an intruder with malicious intent.

Dogs off their lead often approach people in an aggressive way. It is not possible to know whether one will be bitten until after the dog has checked you out by rushing at you. This can be very frightening.

I live close to Sizewell Beach which is visited by hundreds of dogs every day. Most are off lead. This is an attractive place of recreation for dog owners and non-dog owning people such as myself. There have been well publicised cases of people having been bitten by dogs on this beach. I have had more than one altercation with an owner whose dog has rushed over and urinated on me and my clothes. One one occasion the owner seemed to object to our presence on the beach stating in a loud voice "You have no right to object, this is a dog friendly beach!". In other words on Sizewell beach, owners believe that their dogs have a right to do whatever they like and local people without dogs have no rights to be there, or if we insist on using the beach we have no right to object if a dog attacks.

I would like your proposals to be strengthened in two respects:

• a restriction on dogs such that they must to be on leads at all times when in any public space other than those clearly signed as areas where dogs may be exercised off lead. • Sizewell Beach to be added to the short list of beaches in East Suffolk where seasonal dog restrictions apply between 1 May and 30 September each year.

Yours truly,

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 19:48 To: Environment Subject: New dog laws

Sent from my iPad

Dear council members

I do not think we need any changes to the dog laws on felixstowe beach. I think the current exclusions are fair. I am against a total exclusion of dogs on the beach as they need an area where they can run in the summer and cool off in the water when the weather is hot. I also think the exclusion dates should remain the same as the beaches are much quieter outside the exclusion dates.

I also think the current area at languard where dogs have to stay on a lead is sufficient for wild life. We dog owners need to have somewhere to let our dogs off lead for exercise especially when they are young. If every dog walking area is taken away we will have some miserable dogs.

When you say dogs on leads in sports areas how is this defined as the grove field has football goals is this going to be classed as a sports area. Same goes for the filed near recreation close. If this is the case we will have no where to take our dogs to let off steam if you gradually chip away at their freedom

I walk in all these areas every week along with many other dog owners and don't see why we can't all share the nice places to walk. I have not seen any problems in my 16 years of being a dog owner

Yours sincerely .

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 20:30 To: Environment Subject: Re. Dog control.

I would just like to say that I totally agree with the new laws you wish to bring in. I walk my 2 dogs on leads at all times. I am fed up with dogs off the lead when the owners have no control of them, causing a nuisance to us and a possible danger,

Best Regards, Sent from my iPad

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 21:32 To: Environment Subject: 2017/15– Dogs on Leads, Beach South of Shingle Street

Dear SCDC Environmental Protection Team

We are residents of Shingle Street.

Four or five times a week my wife, Susanne, takes an "exercise" walk from Shingle Street to East Lane and back.

With regard to the PROPOSED PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDER

Anti Social Behaviour Crime & Policing Act 2014

2017/15– Dogs on Leads, Beach South of Shingle Street this stretch of beach is mainly used by dog owners, walkers and fishermen, but the amount of use is fairly light.

It is certainly not a popular beach like Aldeburgh, Thorpeness or Felixstowe.

We imagine that the reason for the proposal is due to the avocet chick killed by a dog last year.

However, we would like to point out that this was a one-off occasion and an expert birdwatcher we know who visits very frequently said that the avocet nest in question was almost on the seawall path itself.

This stretch of coast has always worked well because there is successful sharing of it by the various users without many restrictions in place.

This doesn't exist in many places any more and is one of the pleasures of living at Shingle Street. We feel that once restrictions start being imposed, it is easier for further restrictions to follow in the future - an undesirable outcome.

Unless several further incidents occur leading to a real and constant threat to wildlife, we feel that this proposal is a rather exaggerated reaction to a single incident.

Kind Regards

Shingle Street)

From Sent: 22 September 2017 21:39 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Order - Felixstowe

Hi,

I am concerned by proposals to extend the area where dogs are not permitted on the beach between May & September from Cobbolds Point to Manor End. Currently dogs are banned on the beach altogether between May & September between Arwela Road and the Spa Pavilion Theatre, which I think is the appropriate balance for allowing dog owners, and other users to enjoy the beach and sea. The beach south of Beach Station Road is rarely used apart from dog owners allowing their dogs to enjoy swimming in the sea, and chasing a thrown ball across the beach. On the occasions when that part of the beach is being used by visitors, most dog owners are considerate of other users. Most dog owners clear up after their dog, anywhere.

I do believe that dogs should not be permitted in the play area in Martello Park, nor the play area in Langar Park, where parents should be confident their children can enjoy playing without having to worry about dogs, or anything a dog has left behind. It must be required for all dog owners to clear up after their dog anywhere.

Regards,

Felixstowe South Ward

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 21:50 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on leads in Parks

Dear Sir of Madam

This is a tragic idea as the threat of taking away the joy that my dog gets by running after a tennis ball, either in Melton Park or Kingston Park is one that I find hard to believe ?

This is the only place that she can have a good run free and play with other dogs .

I always keep her on a lead when walking along the river in Woodbridge and I only wish that other dog owners would do the same as unfortunately it is a frequent occurrence to be intimidated by dogs off the lead running up to us barking in a threatening manner and going for my dog which spoils a good beautiful walk.

Runners with dogs are also unaware of the what their dogs leave behind ( know what I mean) .

Please could I appeal to you to allow dogs the freedom to run free in our parks, especially as we have a very small garden which makes this even more valuable.

Thank you for your kind attention,

Best wishes

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 22:44 To: Environment Subject: Public Space Protection Orders Proposed Amendments

Dear Councillors,

I wish to register my strong objection to this ridiculous draconian amendment to the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014.

It strikes me that, under the general provisions for dogs on leads, schedule 1 will only serve vehicle users, giving them the power to speed past dog walkers without any regard for the safety of dogs or indeed their owners.

As for schedule 4., what does "when in use as such" actually mean? Will that apply to scheduled matches and other gatherings or will it also refer to a couple of kids kicking a football or having a picnic. If it is the latter then that is totally discriminatory against dog owners! And either way it shows no flexibility for dog owners like myself who can control their pets off the lead.

And what about the river frontage footpaths in Woodbridge where I have never encountered any problems with other users and nor have I witnessed any problems? This proposed amendment is just plain unnecessary and unfair!!!

I would urge everyone involved to forget these amendments and just concentrate on enforcing the existing legislation on dog fowling which would make a much bigger difference to the enjoyment of our quite lanes, footpaths and open spaces.

Yours sincerely,

From: Sent: 22 September 2017 23:59 To: Environment Subject: Dogs on Leads (General Provisions)

Dear Sir / Madam,

You have asked for view on your Dogs on Leads (General Provisions) proposed controls.

This looks to be a particular unreasonable control that is being proposed.

From the many years of walking my own dog along the side of roads, on footpaths and in other areas stated in the proposal, I have rarely seen an unruly dog that is not on a lead. Unruly dogs by nature need greater control, and this is shown in nearly all cases (approximately 98% in my experience) by the dog being kept on a lead. Indeed, my dog will not go near a dog that is on a lead, as she has learnt over the years that these dogs are either unruly, aggressive, or cannot be trusted to return to their owners if they were to be let off the lead.

Dogs not on a lead are nearly always those which are well trained and can be trusted by their owners not to cause issues to other dogs, the general public, and road users.

Enacting this proposal would result in dogs not getting enough exercise and therefore becoming more aggressive and unruly. The proposal would have exactly the opposite of the desired effect and I therefore cannot agree with this under any circumstances.

Yours sincerely,

Closed