OFFICIAL:SENSITIVE
Dear Mrs Latimer,
I have been asked to respond to you in relation to your query below. I am the manager of the Environmental Protection team. Firstly however, it may help to put in context legislation governing the control of dogs.
Dog related anti-social behaviour such as fouling is a commonly reported issue, and the health and safety risks to users of park spaces, sports pitches, or staff who maintain our parks and open spaces is a responsibility of the Council. Many of the dog on lead controls are to ensure those in control of dogs can easily identify dog faeces and pick it up, however there are other reasons for implementation such as general safety. It is important for a Council to consider the requirements and views of both the dog owning and non dog owning community and ensure that our parks and open spaces are free to enjoy for all residents, businesses and visitors to our city.
There has been a form of dog control in Plymouth including the ability to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN’s) since 2008 and in 2014, the law changed meaning that all previous controls were transposed into new Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The areas that are subject to control have mostly remained unchanged in that time period, with some additional new areas being included in the 2020 PSPO such as parts of Central Park, and the new Crematoria site, in advance of it opening. The current PSPO is in force until October 2023 and was implemented as an Executive Decision of the Council and was signed in 2020. A PSPO needs to be reviewed every 3 years in order to renew or vary it. As part of the last review in 2020, a consultation process was undertaken to explore the support for dog control measures in specific area in Plymouth and following the consultation, the previous PSPO was amended, following the majority wishes of those that had been consulted. The full details of the PSPO are available on the Council website on the following link. Dog control | PLYMOUTH.GOV.UK
A PSPO may only prohibit or impose requirements that are reasonable to prevent or reduce the detrimental effect from continuing, occurring or recurring. A local authority may make a PSPO if they are satisfied that the following 2 conditions are met:
1. Activities carried out in a public place within the authority’s area are having or have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or it is likely that the activities will be carried out in a public place within that area and they will have such an effect
2. The effect or likely effect of the activity:
· Is or is likely to be of a persistent or continuing nature
· Is or is likely to be such as to make the activities unreasonable, and
· Justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice
A person will commit an offence if they do something that is prohibited or they fail to comply with a PSPO. Anyone who has breached a PSPO can be issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice of £100 giving the person 14 days to pay the fine.
In relation to general environmental crime, such as littering, fly tipping and dog control, the Council in addition made a further Executive Decision to increase environmental enforcement.
I have added comments to your individual queries for clarity.
1 While there is already a satisfactory national law concerning dog-fouling, Plymouth Council’s actions under the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) focus on banning off-lead dogs from sports fields, thus creating a double standard of hygiene across Plymouth. Areas other than sports pitches are de facto less monitored than sports pitches. This is not welcome by the public at large who have families and toddlers who play on the grass.
Sportsmen who play on the fields in boots with studs are given favoured status. This is illogical and divisive.
As an alternative to this biased situation, I suggest you withdraw the PSPO and impose fines for those who do not pick up after their dogs across all public spaces, instead of singling out sports pitches for preferential treatment towards sports participants at the expense of the majority of the community.
The PSPO, as explained is the legislation for the control of dogs including fouling, dogs off leads and other controls as listed in the order. There is no separate legislation dealing with dog fouling. Patrols are carried out for all types of dog control relevant to this Order. We accept that dog fouling is unacceptable, and it carries risks to members of the public and Council staff, but there is a particular risk to any person playing sports or using the pitches who is more likely to be in direct contact with dog fouling when falling over during sporting activities.
The Council considers the approach on sports pitches to be relevant. However, the PSPO is due to be reviewed in 2023, and any additional changes will be considered in 2023. If changes are made there will be a consultation exercise and the final decision, once the consultation has been reviewed will be an Executive Decision by the Council, which is published with an opportunity for the decision to be called in by Councillors. You may wish to make comments during any consultation exercise.
There is an opportunity to challenge the PSPO within 6 weeks of making it, but the section 66 of the relevant legislation outlines the process, which includes making an appeal to the High Court on specific grounds. Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (legislation.gov.uk)
I can confirm that the Council have powers to issue FPNs for dog fouling in all public spaces currently under the existing order. I refer you to section 5 of the existing order.
2 The recent clamp-down on walking dogs on sports pitches marks a stark contrast to what we have been used to. Without a public awareness campaign, without reaching out to residents’ groups or those who have dogs, the Council has suddenly decided that its attitude has changed and has started to fine people who have previously been able to walk their dogs on these same areas without any hassle from local authorities.
This unannounced about-turn is completely counter to the spirit and execution of the Government’s guidance in this area.
“It is important for councils to consider carefully the potential impact of a PSPO on different sections of their communities. In introducing an Order, councils must take care to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act requires public authorities to have due regard to a number of equality considerations when exercising their functions. Proposals for a PSPO should therefore be reviewed to determine how they might target or impact on certain groups.” (Public Spaces Protection Order, Guidance for councils, p10)
There has been no recent clampdown on walking dogs on sports pitches. Enforcement has been ongoing for several years although following a published Council decision, enforcement activity increased in early 2019 and has continued since that time. The Council consulted the public in 2020 when the last Order was implemented. The implementation of the Order followed the legislation and guidance issued by the government. An Equalities Impact assessment was undertake at the time the Order was created and was published by the Council.
3 The recent clamp down has seen many dog owners terrified. Specifically, two men from the Council dressed in black hoodies, with body cameras and clip boards approach residents out on a walk, tell them to give their names and addresses, threaten them with the police being brought in if they do not comply. Then they issue a £100 fine. Our reports say that the majority of those stopped are women.
Is this appropriate? Is this what Plymouth wants to be known for? I am ashamed that a local authority in the UK should use such bullying, inappropriate tactics. It is shameful!
This heavy-handed approach is destroying the friendly community spirit that daily our walks create. The pleasure in meeting fellow dog owners has been wiped out by the council’s ill-advised out actions.
“The Home Office’s statutory guidance reiterates that PSPOs should be used responsibly and proportionately, only in response to issues that cause anti-social behaviour, and only where necessary to protect the public”. (Public Spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils, page 5).
Plymouth Council’s measures do not align with this guidance. In fact, they have created outrage amongst a much larger section of the community than those they seek to favour.
The Government are responsible for creating legislation, and defining the penalties for the breaches of such orders. The Council have chosen to implement the PSPO for the controls listed, and implemented them following the procedures outlined above, complying with legislation and guidance. When the PSPO was created, it considered relevant information following guidance that you refer to.
The council employ Environmental Enforcement Officers to undertake patrols, and the staff are currently both male and female, although the Council employ suitable staff for the role, irrespective of gender. Officers wear uniform, which is Council issued and carry council issued identification. On occasions, non unformed patrols are carried out. They may patrol on foot but also travel using vehicles. They issue Fixed Penalty Notices when they witness offences, irrespective of gender.
4 So far, we have heard only of women being stopped. Do council records bear this out? We would be interested if you could let us know the number of women stopped and the number of men stopped.
I have considered this as a Freedom of information enquiry. Numbers of FPNs issued by the Council for environmental offences is published on line on the following link, however, information about gender is not specifically recorded. Number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) issued | PLYMOUTH.GOV.UK
As already mentioned, FPN’s are issued to those who are witnessed breaching the PSPO and there is no specific targeting of any group of individuals.
5 While the council response to criticism of the recent clamp-down is that ‘nothing has changed’, this is far from the reality. Sports pitches essentially take up almost all the land in many recreational areas (e.g. Plymstock and Elburton), so that means if you are walking a dog you can now only walk round a narrow band on the outer part of the field. Obviously, the dog must be on a lead.
This is totally different to the situation we have been used to. It means that the fields have essentially been removed from the largest group of users. Totally unfair, divisive and anti-community.
“It is important that any Orders put in place do not inadvertently restrict everyday sociability in public spaces.” (Public spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils, page7).
In fact, this is exactly what has happened as a result of the misjudged imposition of the PSPO.
The approach has been covered above and there has been no recent change in approach. There are numerous spaces where dog walkers can exercise their dogs freely and the Council have to balance the rights of those with dogs and those without. The controls about leads on sports pitches are designed to protect sports users as there are designated sports pitches. Dogs are not excluded from these areas, but are required to be on a lead, and this lead can be an extended lead.
6 “In some cases of course it will not be appropriate to introduce broad-scale restrictions. When drafting an Order placing restriction on dogs for instance, it should be considered that owners have a duty under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to provide for their animal’s welfare, which includes exercising them. In determining the area covered by restrictions, councils should therefore consider how to accommodate the need for owners to exercise their animals.
The area which the PSPO will cover must be clearly defined. Mapping out areas where certain behaviours are permitted may also be helpful: for instance, identifying specific park areas where dogs can be let off a lead without breaching the PSPO.” ((Public spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils, page9).
Clearly Plymouth Council have offered the public no alternative space. The Council has removed usable land from dog walkers and not replaced it with anything. This is counter to the letter and the spirit of the aforementioned guidance document.
The Council consider there are sufficient spaces to exercise dogs freely without being confined to a lead and have considered the guidance in implementing the orders. There is no blanket ban covering all open spaces in Plymouth and the Order has looked at the primary use of the open space and determined the appropriate controls.
Information on local Parks is available on the Council website. Find a park | PLYMOUTH.GOV.UK
7 We understand that the considerable revenue generated by these spot fines is welcome at a time of hardship. However, penalising citizens who are innocently taking a stroll in the neighbourhood is not an appropriate way to bolster town finances. In fact, it is a shameful abuse of power.
The Council are imposing the legislation that is created by government and have followed relevant guidance in its implementation. Your comments are noted.
8 Other Consequences of the PSPO
I heard yesterday from a local resident that he always used to pick up litter from the fields in Plymstock. He and a friend volunteered to clear the fields of litter and regularly fill whole bin bags. Now that Plymouth Council is acting in such an egregious way, they have both decided to stop litter-picking.
These recent actions are creating antipathy and actively turning residents against the local council.
The Council also tackle other environmental issues such as littering, and issue FPNs in the same way when offences are observed. Your comments are noted.
9 Let us remember that vast numbers of dog owners are out there day in day out, taking exercise, socializing, using public fields much more than any sports team. Many are elderly and this activity benefits their mental health and physical wellbeing
It is important to consider all users of open spaces in Plymouth and balance the requirements of all of the local community.
Kind regards
Nicola Horne
Environmental Health (Environmental Protection) Manager
Public Protection Service
Windsor House
Tavistock Road
Plymouth
Devon
PL6 5UF
T +441752304556
E nicola.horne@plymouth.gov.uk
From: judy latimer <judyltmr@yahoo.com>
Sent: 04 January 2023 08:32
To: Wakeham, Bill <Bill.Wakeham@plymouth.gov.uk>
Subject: Dog owners protest
Dear Councillor,
I invite you to read through these paragraphs and give your reactions.
1 While there is already a satisfactory national law concerning dog-fouling, Plymouth Council’s actions under the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) focus on banning off-lead dogs from sports fields, thus creating a double standard of hygiene across Plymouth. Areas other than sports pitches are de facto less monitored than sports pitches. This is not welcome by the public at large who have families and toddlers who play on the grass.
Sportsmen who play on the fields in boots with studs are given favoured status. This is illogical and divisive.
As an alternative to this biased situation, I suggest you withdraw the PSPO and impose fines for those who do not pick up after their dogs across all public spaces, instead of singling out sports pitches for preferential treatment towards sports participants at the expense of the majority of the community.
2 The recent clamp-down on walking dogs on sports pitches marks a stark contrast to what we have been used to. Without a public awareness campaign, without reaching out to residents’ groups or those who have dogs, the Council has suddenly decided that its attitude has changed and has started to fine people who have previously been able to walk their dogs on these same areas without any hassle from local authorities.
This unannounced about-turn is completely counter to the spirit and execution of the Government’s guidance in this area.
“It is important for councils to consider carefully the potential impact of a PSPO on different sections of their communities. In introducing an Order, councils must take care to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. The Equality Act requires public authorities to have due regard to a number of equality considerations when exercising their functions. Proposals for a PSPO should therefore be reviewed to determine how they might target or impact on certain groups.” (Public Spaces Protection Order, Guidance for councils, p10)
3 The recent clamp down has seen many dog owners terrified. Specifically, two men from the Council dressed in black hoodies, with body cameras and clip boards approach residents out on a walk, tell them to give their names and addresses, threaten them with the police being brought in if they do not comply. Then they issue a £100 fine. Our reports say that the majority of those stopped are women.
Is this appropriate? Is this what Plymouth wants to be known for? I am ashamed that a local authority in the UK should use such bullying, inappropriate tactics. It is shameful!
This heavy-handed approach is destroying the friendly community spirit that daily our walks create. The pleasure in meeting fellow dog owners has been wiped out by the council’s ill-advised out actions.
“The Home Office’s statutory guidance reiterates that PSPOs should be used responsibly and proportionately, only in response to issues that cause anti-social behaviour, and only where necessary to protect the public”. (Public Spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils, page 5).
Plymouth Council’s measures do not align with this guidance. In fact, they have created outrage amongst a much larger section of the community than those they seek to favour.
4 So far, we have heard only of women being stopped. Do council records bear this out? We would be interested if you could let us know the number of women stopped and the number of men stopped.
5 While the council response to criticism of the recent clamp-down is that ‘nothing has changed’, this is far from the reality. Sports pitches essentially take up almost all the land in many recreational areas (e.g. Plymstock and Elburton), so that means if you are walking a dog you can now only walk round a narrow band on the outer part of the field. Obviously, the dog must be on a lead.
This is totally different to the situation we have been used to. It means that the fields have essentially been removed from the largest group of users. Totally unfair, divisive and anti-community.
“It is important that any Orders put in place do not inadvertently restrict everyday sociability in public spaces.” (Public spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils, page7).
In fact, this is exactly what has happened as a result of the misjudged imposition of the PSPO.
6 “In some cases of course it will not be appropriate to introduce broad-scale restrictions. When drafting an Order placing restriction on dogs for instance, it should be considered that owners have a duty under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, to provide for their animal’s welfare, which includes exercising them. In determining the area covered by restrictions, councils should therefore consider how to accommodate the need for owners to exercise their animals.
The area which the PSPO will cover must be clearly defined. Mapping out areas where certain behaviours are permitted may also be helpful: for instance, identifying specific park areas where dogs can be let off a lead without breaching the PSPO.” ((Public spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils, page9).
Clearly Plymouth Council have offered the public no alternative space. The Council has removed usable land from dog walkers and not replaced it with anything. This is counter to the letter and the spirit of the aforementioned guidance document.
7 We understand that the considerable revenue generated by these spot fines is welcome at a time of hardship. However, penalising citizens who are innocently taking a stroll in the neighbourhood is not an appropriate way to bolster town finances. In fact, it is a shameful abuse of power.
8 Other Consequences of the PSPO
I heard yesterday from a local resident that he always used to pick up litter from the fields in Plymstock. He and a friend volunteered to clear the fields of litter and regularly fill whole bin bags. Now that Plymouth Council is acting in such an egregious way, they have both decided to stop litter-picking.
These recent actions are creating antipathy and actively turning residents against the local council.
9 Let us remember that vast numbers of dog owners are out there day in day out, taking exercise, socializing, using public fields much more than any sports team. Many are elderly and this activity benefits their mental health and physical wellbeing.
Plymouth Council, please rescind this unwarranted PSPO and let our communities get back to the activities they enjoy.
Let us live peaceably together.
Judy Latimer on behalf of the dog owners of Plymstock and Elburton
IMPORTANT: This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential or sensitive information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it to any other person or take any action in reliance. If you have received it in error, please notify your system manager and the sender as soon as possible and then delete it from your system.