Tough words on dog controls

Rother leader Cllr Graham Gubby has told dog control order critic Christopher Jackson: "Regardless of the letters after your name, including MEP, and your innuendos about Conservative voting... it's a shame that like so many people you rush to the media before discussing matters with those you seek to challenge publicly!

"So far, all that Rother District Council has done, and all that its cabinet was asked to authorise, is that we consult the people we represent on Dog Control Orders. A very democratic and Conservative way of doing things.

"Please see the attached 'standard' response to those who contact me (and the council) and please brief yourself better via the links contained therein on what we (and all councils in England - including Boroughs/Districts and Parishes in Kent!) will have to consider.

"I thank you for your comments, which will be passed on to our officers, who I have every confidence will consider them, with others, very carefully and in due course will report back with appropriate, proportionate, balanced and necessary options for Dog Control Order/s."

In his standard response, Cllr Gubby says: "This whole area of legislation is extremely complex and has been misunderstood by a number of people.

"Throughout Rother there are at present in force no less than six sets of Byelaws and Orders made by Rother District Council controlling dogs, and a further nine Byelaws have been made by individual Parish Councils inrespect of their own grounds.

"Introduction of Dog Control Orders would provide an opportunity to consolidate all these controls and provide a single point of reference for anyone seeking to know where dogs were banned or had to be on leads and where they had to clear-up after their dog.

"Therefore the council is doing its best to work with the various town and parish councils, and its citizens generally, to draw up appropriate and proportionate Dog Control Orders. In the event that a Parish/Town Council chooses to opt out of the District Dog Control Orders then it will be a matter for them to consider how they go about enforcement of matters such as the clearing of dog mess, restricting where and in what circumstances dogs can have access to land, etc., etc.

"Full details of what the Council is doing and why we are doing it, together with an opportunity for you to respond to the consultation can be found on our website at //www.rother.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=898&detailid=2697

< http://www.rother.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=898&detailid=2697> .

"Please be assured that no decisions have been taken and Councillors will not be considering this atter until the officers are satisfied that an appropriate and enforceable Order/s are ready for onsideration. This is not likely to be until October of this year."

Christopher Jackson has replied: "Many thanks for your prompt response for which I am grateful.

"As you will have seen, the original Rother proposal, brief and consultation documents, together with the Act, made me fear that over-rapid action would be taken on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the situation.

"This was the reason why I supported the public campaign which seemed a matter of great urgency. I saw the document you kindly enclosed, referring to October, only after I had done my brief.

"I am so glad to gather from your reponse that you are consulting and reconsidering more widely than I had believed was the case, and I look forward to learning of the 'appropriate, proportionate, balanced and necessary options' (which I trust will include the status quo) in due course.

"I hope the Rother council will now take particular care to avoid action which would as a by-product repeal existing bye laws with which parish councils are content.

"My remark about voting was not mere innuendo but reflected a number of professed Conservative voters having indicated to me that if things went ahead as originally proposed they would, at local elections, vote for another party. That struck me as strong stuff, but understandable considering how fiercely pet owners sometimes feel.

"I hope all comes out well for you, the Council - and our pets."

Contributing to Nick Rosenberg's www.rotherdogs.com campaign website Ivor Llewelyn says: "I am very concerned about the proposed Dog Control Orders, and would like to address number of questions, through this website, to those responsible for this proposal; they need to provide answers.

"When I was in Defra I worked on the Clean Neighbourhoods Act and on the guidance for Dog Control Orders, and it seems clear to me that the current proposals conflict with the intention underlying the new system and with the Government's Guidance on making these Orders.

"The Guidance says that it is 'important for any authority considering a Dog Control Order to be able to show that this is a necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them'.

"It then goes on to say: 'The authority needs to balance the interests of those in charge of dogs against the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs, bearing in mind the need for people, in particular children, to have access to dog-free areas and areas where dogs are kept under strict control, and the need for those in charge of dogs to have access to areas where they can exercise their dogs without undue restrictions.

"A failure to give due consideration to these factors could make any subsequent Dog Control Order vulnerable to challenge in the Courts'.

"Given this explicit Guidance, I would be interested to know what problems have been caused in Rother by the activities of dogs, and in what way are the proposed measures "a necessary and proportionate response" to them. More specifically:

"What justification is there for banning dogs from all Bexhill beaches from 8am to 8pm during summer months?

"What justification is there for requiring dogs to be kept on leads at all times except in a limited number of areas; these do not include beaches, so dogs would have to be kept on leads when on any beach in Bexhill, including during winter months?

"Why is the use of any lead longer than 1 metre, including retractable leads, to be banned?

"What is the justification for the proposed limit of three on the number of dogs that can be taken onto land, given that Government Guidance says that the number should not exceed six?

"The Guidance makes it clear that a lower number may be appropriate, but this has to be established taking into account the views of dog-owning and non dog-owning residents within the area to which the order will apply. A key factor is whether children frequently use the area. It seems clear that the Guidance envisages that this power will be used in a way that takes account of the characteristics of particular areas.

"In each case, I believe that Rother District Council will need to be able to point to specific problems that have arisen and explain why the proposed measures are considered to be the most appropriate way of addressing these problems. If it is not able to do so it would, as the Guidance says 'be vulnerable to challenge in the Courts'.

"I would also be interested to know how Rother District Council intends to enforce these Orders. The Guidance points out that failure to properly enforce an order could undermine its effect. My impression, which may be wrong, is that the current byelaws on dogs are not rigorously enforced. I would like to know, for example, how many prosecutions have their been for failure to observe the byelaws in the past 12 months (this is, of course, relevant to the questions I have raised above, since if there are major problems with dogs in Bexhill I would expect there to have been a significant number of prosecutions)?

"These draconian new restrictions would not be easy enforce and if Rother District Council goes ahead with them, it will need to ensure that it has a properly staffed and trained enforcement team.

"Finally, why the hurry? Despite some statements from Rother, and the leading article in the Bexhill Observer on February 9, the Guidance makes it quite clear that existing byelaws remain in force indefinitely unless they are superseded by a dog control order. The same is true of designation orders made under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996.

"There is no reason for Rother District Council to rush into making Dog Control Orders, and while I am in favour of consolidating, and where necessary rationalising existing dog controls, this should not be used as an excuse to rush through badly thought out and unnecessary restrictions on dogs and dog owners.

"What in my view is needed is an open consultation process to identify what problems dogs and their owners are causing and what the solutions are, based on all the options available.

For example, a Dog Control Order can make it an offence not to put a dog on a lead when required to do so by a council officer. Is this a possible solution to the 'problem' of out of control dogs on the beach, if there is indeed such a problem?