Agenda item

To consider a report by the Director for Communities, copy attached as

item 7

Before the Committee was a report by the Director for Communities, a copy of which had been circulated to all Members, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of these minutes as item 7.

Following a report considered at Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) in July 2018 in relation to dog fouling and litter a request was made by JOSC  that a review of the Dog Control Service being conducted be reported to the Committee.The report before members outlined the review of the Dog Control Service and compared the service delivery model with other local authorities in East and West Sussex.

The Head of Wellbeing and the Team Leader- Specialist Food & H&S were present to answer questions.

A Member asked the following question: The local comparisons listed are fine, but why not ask the LGA who are the 2 or 3 best dog control authorities in the UK? The Head of Wellbeing expressed a desire to always look to improve and learn.

A Member asked the following question: Can the dog wardens confirm how decisions are made when it becomes necessary to dispose of a stray dog and can you reassure me that no dog requiring vets fees are put to sleep due to financial considerations? Members were told that a dog was only put down if a vet had given the opinion that the animal was suffering and it was necessary to do so 

A Member asked if there had been consideration of an independent review of the service and was told by the head of wellbeing that Reviews would be welcome.

A Member asked the following question: Paragraph 3.3 Appendix A (Agenda page 13 Microchipping) – one of the biggest issues I have read about is that a low percentage of stray dogs are microchipped, can you tell me what your statistics are please and what can be done to encourage micro-chipping take-up.  Members were told that it was a legal requirement to have your dog microchipped. The main issue occurred when a dog was found with a microchip but owners had moved address.

A Member asked the following question: Does the dog warden service have any plans to introduce poo bag dispensers for dog walkers at our local parks? Members were told that the experience of other authorities had shown provision of this service had not been positive and had led to vandalism and littering.

A Member asked the following question: The report concludes in paragraph 8 in favour of an in house operation. The advantages listed in paragraph 7 are quite generic. How is it that such an approach was not used on Pest Control last year, before the service was privatised? The advantages listed would be relevant to that service too.  Members were told that the two services were not comparable as pest control was a service paid for by customers, the in-house service had been seen to be not financially viable and the dog warden service was a statutory service.

A Member asked the following question: Paragraph 3.4 Appendix A (Agenda Page 13) prohibited dogs - in the case of a prohibited dog being reported to the police, who takes custody of the dog and what steps are taken to prosecute and how many prosecutions were there for? Members were told that it was a Police matter and that the Councils would not be consulted.

A Member asked the following question: Paragraph 4.1 Appendix A (Agenda Page 13) seizure and detention -   a slightly higher proportion of the stray dogs collected in 2018 (91%) were returned to owners rather than 2017 (86%).  Members were told that the vast majority of dogs were returned within 7 days. The service was reactive and the number showed variances in the type of cases being dealt with.

A Member asked the following question: Paragraph 4.6 Appendix A (Agenda Page 17) CPN’s – Of the 5 CPN’s please can you explain the split between Adur and Worthing and how many led to fixed penalty notice or prosecution and if so were 100% of FPN or prosecution costs successfully secured. Can you explain why please? Members were told that there had been four cases in Worthing and one case in Adur. FPN cases were typically long running and persistent, legal proceedings may be the most appropriate course of action where a level 4 fine is available.  In the cases of the 3 CPNs issued for dogs straying multiple times two of the dogs came into the custody of the Councils and have been successfully rehomed though dog rescue organisations. The other case has shown no further incidence of straying.

A Member asked the following question: Paragraph 4.5 Appendix A Public Space Protection Orders -  you state that more resources were required to deal with complex issues and subsequent CPN’s and this withdrew resourcing from dog patrolling, you say you expect to switch back to more routine patrols (can you clarify the breadth of this).  Members were told that the dog control service was generally reactive and focused on particular areas is somewhat complaint driven. On the basis of finite resource and capacity it is important to achieve a balance of reactive and proactive intervention. In April 2019 it is planned to reintroduce early morning patrols and patrols will be directed where there were higher incidences of complaints and 'hot spot' areas for dog fouling.

Proposals were made regarding further review of the service and the introduction of a free dog poo bag service both of which were not carried.

Resolved: that the report and interview be noted