Issue - meetings

Arising from a report of the Environment and Enforcement Manager,the Environment Policy Development Group has made the following recommendations:

1)    Authority be given to consult with members of the public and other relevant stakeholders to introduce a Public Spaces Protection Order under section 59 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

2)    The fixed penalty for breach of the PSPO be set at the maximum permitted of £100

Arising from a report of the Environment and Enforcement Manager, the Environment Policy Development Group had made the following recommendations:

1)    Authority be given to consult with members of the public and other relevant stakeholders to introduce a Public Spaces Protection Order under section 59 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

2)    The fixed penalty for breach of the PSPO be set at the maximum permitted of £100

The Cabinet Member for the Environment and Climate Change outlined the contents of the report informing the meeting that this had been discussed towards the end of the previous year where some perceived inaccuracies had been identified, further work had taken place and the order had now been redrafted and the maps updated.  He highlighted the appropriate areas where dogs could be let off leads, those areas excluded and the number of dogs that could be walked by one person; he also confirmed the fixed penalty charge.

In response to the question raised in Public Question Time, he stated that with regard to:

a)    Demanding names and addresses - although we have never had this issue as far as I am aware, if this was to occur the officers would contact the police who would attend and request that the individual provides such details. The District Officers caution individuals before requesting this information.

b)    Making contemporaneous video recordings - video cameras or recordings would only support the above offence if the individual refusing to give the information could be formally identified by Police or another officer.

Consideration was given to:

·         Whether land at Cotteybrook, Tiverton was appropriate for dogs to be left off leads

·         The above could be identified as part of the consultation process

·         Whether a fixed penalty would be reduced if paid within a set period

·         The thorough consideration of the document by the Policy Development Group

RESOLVED that the recommendation of the Policy Development Group be approved.

(Proposed by Cllr C R Slade and seconded by Cllr D J Knowles)

Reason for the Decision: to enable further consultation with a view to widening enforcement powers in order to deliver a cleaner and more sustainable environment across the Mid Devon District.

Following consideration of a report of the Environment and Enforcement Manager, the Environment Policy Development Group has made the following recommendations: that the PSPO be redrafted to take account of the public consultation responses before it goes out for further public consultation on additional areas proposed. The revised PSPO be bought back to Environment PDG for recommendation to the Cabinet.

Following consideration of a *report of the Environment and Enforcement Manager, the Environment Policy Development Group has made the following recommendations: that the PSPO be redrafted to take account of the public consultation responses before it goes out for further public consultation on additional areas proposed. The revised PSPO be brought back to Environment PDG for recommendation to the Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment outlined the contents of the report stating that the current PSPO ran out on 19 October 2020 and that there was a need to approve a new order.  He felt that the consultation process had been well received and that key points from the consultation had been added to the document.

The Leader highlighted the fact that the PDG had recommended that the PSPO be redrafted and  that a further consultation process take place, some errors had been highlighted and that there was a need for further work to take place.

The Head of Legal (Monitoring Officer) addressed some of the issues that had been raised through public question time and by members in recent days

·         Why the report did not recommend changes in light of the consultation exercise – the view taken was that this was for the Cabinet as decision-maker.

·         Whether a PSPO should be used as a last resort – the consideration of  alternative measures was encouraged but the legislation did not require it.

·         The restrictions must be justified on reasonable grounds in line with the statutory tests -  if the Cabinet was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds, they did not have to approve the making of the  order now or in its current form.

·         With regard to bye-laws, this was quite an old way of confirming restrictions and the enforcement of bye-laws was generally through prosecution or an injunction.  It was difficult to see that this was a more proportionate response.

·         The creation of different PSPOs for different issues -  this was not necessary  but there was no obstacles for doing this.

·         Dog fouling did occur throughout the district and there would always be responsible and irresponsible dog ownership.

·         Restriction of the number of dogs - this could be imposed, subject to the same tests mentioned above. The Local Government Association guidance referred to the need to focus on the number of dogs that could be controlled with the advice that this should not exceed 6.

·         The requirement to identify (in terms of it being an offence not to do so) other than to a police officer was dropped in 2014.

·         With regard to consulting with landowners, this should take place so far as it was reasonably practicable, the point being that unregistered land or absent owners might make it impracticable.

·         A PSPO should be proportionate and enforceable.

·         Mention of a higher standard of harassment and distress was not in the legislation. An assessment of proposed controls was part of the consultation and that the previous order had controls.

·         Possible licences for the number of dogs that could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 252

To receive a report setting out the key findings from the consultation on a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for the Mid Devon area which ran from 12 May 2020 to 17 July 2020, to update the Environment PDG (and the Cabinet) on the feedback received from the PSPO public consultation and to seek approval on a Revised PSPO to be made in response to the consultation.

The Group had before it a report of the Environment and Enforcement Manager regarding  the *Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) – Dogs.

The officer explained that the report gave an overview of the public consultation responses. She further explained that although additional area’s of public space had been proposed by the public and parish councils that it was not possible to add these area’s to the current PSPO. In response to questions asked by the public she confirmed that the Council had removed the area suggested by Willand Parish Council but were unable to add in the additional area’s suggested by the public until a further public consultation had taken place on them.

The Legal Services Team Leader explained to Members that area’s could be removed from the PSPO but could not be added without going out for further public consultation. She explained that legislation required new and additional area’s subsequently added to the PSPO were required to go out for further public consultation. She explained the alternative measures which were available to the Council:

a)    The PSPO could be sealed with the existing areas in place and new area’s could then be added by way of a variation once a public consultation had taken place on them: or

b)    A second PSPO could be added to include the additional areas once a public consultation had taken place on them: or

c)    The PSPO was not sealed now and deferred to allow for amendments to be made and for additional areas to be added once a public consultation had taken place on them. This would leave the Council without a sealed PSPO for a period of time.

Members discussed the proposed PSPO presented to them and consideration was given to:

·         The views of the public who had asked questions about their responses to the consultation being ignored

·         The views of the Cabinet Members present who felt that they would be unable to support the PSPO in it’s current form

·         Members views that not having a PSPO for a period of time would not have a detrimental effect on the Council

·         The PSPO had to include the views of the public on the requirements to have dogs on leads in all public spaces and the number of dogs allowed

·         Members views that dog owners voices were not being heard

·         That public engagement was difficult to obtain and this should not be wasted by ignoring the responses

The Group discussed setting up a working group to discuss a revised PSPO with officers. The Group agreed that the Chairman and the Cabinet Member for the Environment would work with officers to bring forward a revised PSPO which considered the responses to the public consultation.

Therefore the Group RECOMMENDED that:

·         That the PSPO be redrafted to take account of the public consultation responses before it goes out for further public consultation on additional areas proposed and that the revised PSPO be bought back to Environment PDG for recommendation to the Cabinet.

(Proposed by Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34