Dog Control Order

The place for serious discussion, announcements and breaking news about Sydenham
Post Reply
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2578
Joined: 20 Sep 2004 21:49

Dog Control Order

Post by admin »

Here is the Lewisham Press Release (pity it doesn't apply to foxes!)

>>>>>>>>>>>>
New Borough-wide Dog Control Order for Lewisham approved

A new borough-wide order giving Lewisham Council extra powers to take action against irresponsible dog owners has been approved.

New legislation, under Section 55 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (2005) means that action and enforcement against people who do not comply with new rules can be taken. The new Dog Control Order was approved by the Mayor and Cabinet on 28 January.

Lewisham Council wants anyone who owns a dog to behave in a responsible manner, and the vast majority of people do. There are, however, a small number of people who do sometimes act irresponsibly. These are the people the Council will now be able to take action against, if they break the new regulations.

A new on-the-spot fine will come into effect from 6 April 2009 for anyone not complying with the new regulations, which will apply across the borough.

Lesley Seary, Executive Director for Customer Services, said: “The public has a right to walk around Lewisham without being afraid of uncontrolled dogs, or of stepping in dog faeces.

“The adoption of the borough-wide order will enable us to take action against people who act irresponsibly by not controlling their dogs, or by allowing them to foul our footpaths and green spaces."

The adoption of a borough-wide Dog Control Order means that an on-the-spot Fixed Penalty Notice of £75 will be issued if people with dogs:

o Fail to remove their dog’s faeces from a public place
o Do not keep their dog on a lead in a designated area such as a park or open space - these will be sign-posted in public areas
o Do not put, or keep their dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer
o Permit their dog to enter land to which dogs are excluded - these will be sign-posted
o Take more than 4 dogs onto land at any one time

Lewisham Council was keen to seek the views from members of the public on this key issue and conducted a consultation exercise in autumn 2008. The Council received 751 responses plus an additional 42 additional letters and emails. A further 288 comments and concerns were included on completed questionnaires.

Some responses from the consultation include:

o Failure to remove dog faeces - of the 750 people who responded to the question, 99.73 per cent agreed with the use of a fine for failure to comply with this order.

o Not keeping a dog on a lead – of the 749 who responded to this question, 97.86 per cent of people agreed with the proposal to fine for this offence. Over 60 per cent of those felt that dogs should be kept on a lead in cemeteries and crematoriums.

o Not putting or keeping a dog on a lead when directed by an authorised officer – 72 per cent of people who responded felt that dogs should be excluded from children’s play areas and 71 per cent felt that they should be excluded from fenced sports areas within parks.

o Taking more than a specified number of dogs onto land – of the 745 responses to this question, more than half felt the proposed maximum number of 6 was too many. As a result, this offence has been reduced to a maximum of 4 dogs.

Lewisham Council will be working with partners, such as the Safer Neighbourhood Teams and wardens, providing training and support. A number of partners and Council Officers will be able to issue Fixed Penalty Notices to anyone not complying with the Order.

Officers from the Council will shortly be visiting wards around the borough holding a series of awareness-raising events, talking to residents about the changes.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ALIB
Posts: 1553
Joined: 12 Oct 2006 21:34
Location: East Sussex

Post by ALIB »

My intial thoughts on this, are it's another set of rules that a small minority of people will ignore. Most dog owners are responsible. However, i can't see the police wasting their time enforcing these directives. I don't think the PCSO's will do so either.

And who are these 'wardens' that I've never seen? It can't be Glendale, so it must be someone else.

This will have as much impact as Lewisham spraying pavement slabs with a "do not let your dog foul the footpath' motif.

One of those days. Please correct me if i've missed something

Ali B
simon
Posts: 966
Joined: 11 Oct 2006 15:35
Location: Longton Avenue

Post by simon »

As a responsible dog owner I welcome these new powers. However, I hope common sense is applied with the second one about dogs on leads. The whole of Mayo Park, for example, is designated as an area where dogs must be kept on a lead at all times but many dog walkers let their's off as there is nowhere else to do so, which is ok if it doesn't do any harm.
Ronski
Posts: 437
Joined: 6 Jan 2006 01:19
Location: SE26

Post by Ronski »

I welcome it if it makes an actual difference.

I swear if they setup in Mayow Park for a few weeks they'd make more money than they do from parking fines in the area. I'd say the ratio is about 50/50 for dog owners that do clean-up after their dogs (well done!) & those that can't be bothered. The leads thing seems a bit over the top in the park, as long as the owners clean up & the dog isn't mental.

Like Alib said who's enforcing it, I've never seen anyone in Mayow Park doing it?
ALIB
Posts: 1553
Joined: 12 Oct 2006 21:34
Location: East Sussex

Post by ALIB »

Sorry to be non-plussed by this, but these laws/powers are of no consequence unless it is actually enforced.
It's like having a speed limit on a road, but no camera traps. Or making cycling on pavements illegal, but having no police to enforce it.

Can anyone on STF visualise a 5ft 2ins PCSO going up to a 6ft 5ins man with a couple of staffie dogs (or similar) in a park. "Excuse me sir, can you pick up your dogs mess or i'll issue you with a fixed penalty notice. If i think you're giving me wrong personal details, I have the power to call for a policeman..." ?

Call me cynical, but I don't think this will be of any effect, though I can understand the principle behind it.

Ali B
Post Reply