Unfairly impacting little businesses

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to make a formal representation regarding the recent Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) restrictions relating to dog walking within Bristol green spaces. 

This correspondence requests clarification, disclosure of the evidential basis for the restrictions, and a review of the proportionality and consultation process undertaken prior to implementation. 
It is submitted on the basis that these measures have a direct and material impact on my livelihood and on other professional dog walkers operating within the city.

The current dog restrictions introduced under Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) are unfairly impacting responsible, professional dog walkers and small businesses who have operated safely for years without issue.
These blanket rules fail to distinguish between: experienced, insured dog professionals and irresponsible individuals who cause genuine problems.
As a result, those of us who have built safe, structured group walking services over many years are now being penalised for incidents we did not cause.

Key Issue: Evidence, Consultation, and Accountability.
Councils are required to document complaints and incidents before introducing PSPO restrictions. These powers are meant to be based on clear evidence that behaviour is having a detrimental effect on the community—not on perception or the preferences of any one group.
However, there has been:
little transparency around the evidence used, no clear breakdown of who is responsible for incidents, no meaningful consultation with professional dog walkers at all and we have effectively been given no real say, despite being directly impacted.

Real Impact on Livelihoods
The consequences of these blanket rules are severe and immediate.
Many of us—myself included—are now:
on the verge of tears trying to keep our businesses afloat, facing doubled workloads while seeing our income halved. We are being forced into situations where: we must walk the same dogs in the same areas but split into smaller groups meaning more trips, more time, more fuel, and more pressure.
This creates no meaningful improvement in safety, yet places enormous strain on those who have done nothing wrong.

Unfairness of Blanket Rules
After years of: being fully insured
investing in training and experience
building trusted, well-managed dog groups…it is deeply unfair to now be treated the same as those who act irresponsibly.
This one-size-fits-all approach ignores the difference between:
professional, responsible operators
and the minority whose behaviour may have led to complaints.

Insurance and Risk Reality
Professional dog walkers are required to hold public liability insurance, and many of us are insured to walk up to six dogs.
Insurance providers assess risk carefully. If walking six dogs presented a consistently high level of danger or resulted in frequent claims, premiums would rise significantly or cover would be restricted.
The fact that insurers continue to provide cover at this level suggests that, when managed responsibly, walking up to six dogs is not inherently unsafe.
This raises a key question:
if six dogs is widely accepted within the insurance and professional framework,
on what clear evidence basis are lower limits being imposed?

Clarification on Guidance Being Referenced
It is also important to address the use of guidance from organisations such as the RSPCA.
Any recommendations commonly cited are typically aimed at general dog ownership and control, not specifically at professional dog walking businesses.
There is NO formal RSPCA policy or recognised document that sets a defined limit for professional dog walkers, yet such guidance is sometimes used to justify blanket restrictions,as it is in Bristols case. This is highly misleading and creates an unbalanced unstable argument.
This creates further concern that policies are being shaped without clear, relevant, or profession-specific evidence.

Wider Context Being Overlooked
There are also broader and more serious issues affecting our public spaces that appear to receive less focus.
Areas such as the The Downs and surrounding green spaces have ongoing problems including:
caravans and encampments
human waste left in public areas
repeated reports of antisocial behaviour
There are also known issues involving motorbike groups operating across:
The Downs
Kings Weston Estate
Purdown
Blaise Castle Estate
These issues are widely known and reported, yet responsible dog walkers—who are visible, accountable, and easy to regulate—are being disproportionately targeted instead.

The Value of Professional Dog Walkers
Professional dog walkers are not part of the problem—we are part of the solution.
We:
regularly clean up not just our own dogs’ waste, but others’
report antisocial behaviour and issues in parks
act as a visible, responsible presence in public spaces
Our businesses rely on:
trust
reputation
and accountability through public reviews
We have every incentive to operate responsibly and maintain high standards.

Questions and Request for Transparency
We now formally ask for transparency and clear answers to the following:
-What specific evidence led to the decision to impose a four-dog limit?
-How many recorded incidents directly involve professional dog walkers?
-Why are lower limits being introduced in urban green spaces, while larger areas such as the New Forest continue to allow up to six dogs under a clearly defined and well-researched dog walking charter?
-What consultation was carried out with professional dog walkers before these decisions were made?
-What complaints specifically led to the current restrictions, and where did they occur?

Final Request for Transparency
We formally request a clear and factual response from the council, with full transparency on how these decisions have been reached.
Specifically, we ask for:
-the evidence used to justify reducing limits to four dogs
-a breakdown of the complaints and incidents relied upon
-clarification on where these incidents occurred
and whether they directly involved professional dog walkers.

Without this level of transparency, it is not possible to see how these restrictions are proportionate, justified, or fairly applied.

We ask that this information is provided openly so that those affected can properly understand—and meaningfully engage with—the decisions that are having such a significant impact on their livelihoods.

We look forward to hearing from you and ideally a formal meeting should be held ?

Regards

Emma Tyrrell