Agenda item

3.1      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) and Sam Kirk (Strategic Waste and Environment Manager) introduced the report; the following key points were noted:

• The report provided an overview of activities in the borough to deal with nuisance dog fouling and encourage responsible dog ownership.
• This work included: implementation of the borough’s Dog Control Orders, community activities, micro-chipping, targeted campaigns, work with Lewisham Homes and initiatives with young offenders.
• The Council had also recently supported a community day of action to tackle dog fouling as well as ‘operation Big Wing’, which was led by the metropolitan police service and targeted a range of anti-social behaviours.
• Lewisham had a BARK project (Borough Action for Responsible K9s), which included representatives from the Council’s housing, environment and community safety teams as well as colleagues from housing associations, Glendale Grounds Maintenance, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the RSPCA.
• Officers had reviewed the data relating to dog attacks in the borough, including information from accident and emergency. This information did not indicate that there was a problem with dangerous dogs or dog bites in Lewisham.
• Data collection relating to dog bites was not always robust, so it was possible that there was a degree of underreporting. In some cases bites were not reported at all.
• Identification of dangerous dog breeds was an expert process, which was carried out by specialist vets and officers from the Status Dogs Unit of the Met Police.
• There had been a recent high profile case of an officer being bitten by a dog. The dog had been killed in the attack. However, it was not clear whether or not the dog was a banned breed.
• The attack highlighted the risks for officers in dealing with dogs. All officers working with the public needed to understand the potential dangers. 
• The borough’s Dog Control Orders had been put in place in 2007.
• Over the past 18 months, there had been 8 enforcement notices issued and 2 prosecutions under the Dog Control Orders.
• The number of enforcement notices issued seemed low, because authorised officers were required to witness contraventions taking place (either a dog fouling or being off its lead, for example) and had to give owners an opportunity to remedy the problem before they could issue a notice. When approached by authorised officers, almost all owners were happy to comply with requests to clean up after their dog or put it on a lead.

3.2      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People), Gary Connors (Crime Reduction Manager) and Sam Kirk (Strategic Waste and Environment Manager) responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

• The borough’s Dog Control Orders required dogs to be on leads on the public highway. There were designated parks and green spaces where dogs were not allowed, or had to be on leads and there were parks where dogs could be off their leads; no more than 4 dogs could be walked by one person and an authorised officer could requests that a dog be put on a lead in any area.
• Signage was in place to inform dog owners of the Dog Control Orders for that particular place.
• Officers were not aware of any specific work taking place with families with babies, or families expecting babies, to educate them about the potential risk posed by dogs to young children.
• Officers would discuss the issue of dog ownership and young children with colleagues who were responsible for health visiting and the community mid-wives team.
• The recent change in the law regarding dogs meant it was now an offence to allow a dog to be ‘dangerously out of control’ anywhere, not just in public places.
• Any dog could be a ‘dangerous dog’.
• Legally defined dangerous breeds of dogs (Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brazilieros) were recognised to have physical features which increased their levels of aggression; however a dog’s temperament was also depended on its environment and on its owners.
• Dogs should be judged by their deeds and not simply by their breed.
• When a problem with dog fouling or dog behaviour in parks was identified in a particular area, the Council worked with the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home to carry out targeted advice and support.
• Focused work had been carried out in Downham, where there had been a number of complaints about irresponsible dog ownership.
• It would be inappropriate for people to contact the police every time they saw a dangerous looking dog, however, in cases in which people felt that they were threatened and felt as though they were in immediate danger, then they should call the police.
• Where specific problems were reported in an area, officers could work with the police to target anti-social behaviour.
• Officers also worked with the RSPCA to carry out educational work in schools and to enforce the Animal Welfare Act.
• On-going monitoring was not carried out on the effectiveness of dog stencils (a depiction of a dog fouling with the words ‘Bag It & Bin It’, which was sprayed on the pavement to encourage people not to allow their dogs to foul) however, when the scheme was first introduced, monitoring was carried out and it found that there was a drop in fouling in areas which had the stencils.
• In order to request a stencil, members of the public should call the Council and request a stencil in their street. Requests were determined on the basis of locations of other stencils, availability of the painting team and/or the number of complaints received in a particular area.
• Numbers of requests to clear up dog fouling by members of the public in 2012/13 was 506; in 2013/14 it was 400 and there had been 187 in the year to October 2014.
• Street sweeping teams should clean up dog fouling. Where it was clear that this was not happening, it should be reported.
• The new ‘community trigger’ did not provide any additional powers for the Council to deal with anti-social behaviour; rather it put an imperative on the Council to respond to repeated reports about the same issue.
• The borough had three cameras for enforcement - which had to be deployed to tackle a range of different crimes. Where it was clear that persistent dog fouling was a problem then officers would consider the option of using mobile camera, if there was evidence to corroborate complaints.
• When a complaint about dog fouling was made, officers sent a response letter, with information and leaflets to the person concerned. Information was also available on the Council’s website.
• The Environment Service also had a blog and a twitter account to share information and raise awareness.
• Councillors would be included in the new ‘Green Dog Walkers Newsletter’, when it was published.

3.3      The Committee also discussed the reasons for people allowing their dogs to foul in public places. Some Members felt that the problem had increased with the rise in the ownership of ‘status dogs’, other Members felt that the problem was mostly down to laziness on the part of some dog owners.

Resolved: to note the report.