Agenda item

To give due consideration to the approval of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) in South Kesteven, in relation to dog fouling, the requirement for dogs to be placed on leads, alcohol control in designated places of the district and the exclusion of dogs from enclosed children’s play areas.

Purpose of report

To give consideration to the approval of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) in South Kesteven, in relation to dog fouling, the requirement for dogs to be placed on leads, alcohol control in designated places of the district and the exclusion of dogs from enclosed children’s play areas.

Decision

Cabinet:

1. Notes the results of the public consultation on Public Spaces Protection Orders undertaken by the Council.

2. Approves the Public Spaces Protection Order for the District of South Kesteven relating to dog fouling, for a 3-year period, unless discharged or varied.

3. Approves the Public Spaces Protection Order for the District of South Kesteven relating to the requirement for dogs to be placed on leads by order of an Officer, for a 3-year period, unless discharged or varied.

4. Approves the Public Spaces Protection Order relating to alcohol control in designated and specified areas, as outlined in the draft Order, for a 3-year period, unless discharged or varied.

5. Approves the Public Spaces Protection Order excluding dogs from enclosed children’s play areas within the District of South Kesteven, for a 3-year period, unless discharged or varied.

6. Approves an immediate consultation with statutory consultees for Public Space Protection Orders concerning a recommended maximum number of dogs on leads per person.

7. Delegates authority to senior officers to explore opportunities for widening the number of individuals able to issue enforcement notices, enabling volunteers to the Council to be trained to undertake enforcement activities.

8. Agrees to the use of dog leads which were of a safe length, rather than a defined length of one metre, as determined by officers.

Alternative options considered and rejected

Cabinet could have agreed not to put the new Orders in place; this would have restricted the ability to enforce against the matters covered by the proposed Order.

Cabinet may have determined that the legal test had not been met in some or all of the Orders, in which case the Order(s) would not have been approved.

If changes to the draft orders had been proposed, further consultation may have been necessary.

Reasons for decision

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) to address nuisance behaviour. They were intended to help ensure that the law-abiding majority could use public spaces safe from anti-social behaviour. They also ensured an effective mechanism was available to deal with issues detailed in the Orders.

Cabinet had previously reviewed extensions to PSPOs in October 2023; these Orders had been processed as new PSPOs and were recommended for a 3-year period but could be amended if necessary.

A total of 91 responses were received to the consultation on this issue. This consultation was received by stakeholders including:

• Any individual or body from those who lived in, worked in or visited the restricted areas who wished to make representation
• The Police; including the Chief Officer of Lincolnshire Police and the local policing body. This included the Neighbourhood Policing Team for the district
• Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner
• Parish, town, district and county councillors across the district
• Other community representatives. These included resident associations, local businesses, any commissioned service providers and other relevant interest groups

The following points were raised during debate:

• It was well known that, during previous three years, there had been a very low number of prosecutions. It was argued that, without enforcement, the work involved in preparing PSPOs would be wasted. One reason for the lack of enforcement was the very low number of officers available to carry out enforcement; this issue had the potential to be addressed through the budgeting process, either through recruiting staff or engaging existing staff.
• Some Local Authorities had PSPOs in place to prohibit dog walkers exercising more than 6 dogs on leads simultaneously. This could be added as a question in a new consultation.
• Previous experience of enforcement within the district had included officers in Market Deeping being present for ‘educational purposes’. This approach had not led to any prosecutions.
• Enforcement rates would improve if evidence could be provided of dog fouling. This would include evidence of the offence taking place, rather than the results of the offence.
• When considering potential PSPOs, the work had to be evidence-led in order to ensure people were not unfairly targeted. Thus far, public consultation did not present sufficient evidence that people walking several dogs at once were causing a particular issue.
• When patrols, signage and good manners failed to discourage bad behaviours, there were opportunities to apply sanctions. The 2014 Act gave the opportunity to award a Fixed Penalty Notice to those that breached PSPOs. The courts had introduced a faster process for prosecution called ‘summary justice’, allowing prosecution within 28 days.
• There was no caselaw definition of the term ‘reasonable excuse’ in relation to dropping litter.
• Volunteers had previously been authorised for similar enforcement work; however, they would require a clear training package from the Council in order to be authorised. From the District Council’s perspective, the term ‘volunteers’ would include officers or individuals of Town or Parish Councils.
• Training to enforce against PSPOs would need to ensure volunteers were aware of the law, firm and able to avoid confrontation.
• PSPOs related to a specific issue, and enforcement must be proportionate, and evidence based. Variations could be made to PSPOs and relatively swiftly if necessary.