Fylde Council Working Group on Public Space Protection Orders
Note: The minutes and other supporting documentation of the meetings of the Working Group have not been published on the Fylde Council website and were obtained via a Freedom of Information Request.
- Establishment and Composition
- General Comments about the Working Group
- Working Group Meeting 24 January 2017
- Working Group Meeting 23 August 2016
- Working Group Meeting 26 July 2016
- Working Group Meeting 14 July 2016
Establishment and Composition
The first reference that can be found relating to the establishment of PSPOs is in the Agenda and Minutes of the Operational Management Committee 8 March 2016. The Agenda to the meeting can be found HERE and the minutes of the meeting HERE.
The following people were appointed members of the Working Group:
- Councillors: Ben Aitken, Alan Clayton, David Eaves, Cheryl Little, Albert Pounder, Vince Settle
- Council Officers: Allan Oldfield, Kathy Winstanley, Sarah Wilson, Sharon Wadsworth
We have recently become aware of the long history of Fylde Council's ineptitude in dealing with dog controls thanks to the excellent website Counterbalance - a site that has been observing Council activities for a long time and which is highly recommended. Counterbalance has a long and detailed article about the Dog PSPOs from someone interested in the Council's approach and not even particularly sympathetic to some of our objectives. Read the site's account of the meeting on 15 November 2016 in particular HERE.
General Comments about the Working Group
It is our opinion that the way Fylde Council is handling PSPOs via the Working Group is biased, inept, and lacking in the openness that Fylde Council claims to believe in. Meetings take place behind closed doors with no intention of publishing the minutes. The starting point of Fylde Council seems to have been a decision to implement PSPOs for dog controls then to scratch around and try to find evidence to support them. This is evidenced by the inability of Fylde Council to produce objective evidence relating to any of its proposals. Preference was given by Council Officers to hearsay, anecdotal evidence and extracts apparently taken from Social media websites.
The original set of proposals, which are examined in depth on other pages of this website, was followed up with a biased survey process consisting of loaded questions, and the analysis of the results of the survey as published on the Council website has been produced after discarding inconvenient responses - presumably because responders failed to give "the right answers" to most of the questions and it would have been too embarrassing to admit it. See in particular the minutes and presentation of the meeting held 24 January 2017 below.
Councillors on the Working Group have failed the residents of the Fylde by not challenging or querying the proposals from Council employees. In fact the due diligence that Councillors should perform as part of their responsibilities has been entirely lacking throughout the handling of this matter. We have tried to correct this as far as we can through analysis of information obtained via Freedom of Information requests and publishing it on this website.
Careful perusal of the minutes and presentations from the Working Group will show that it has spent virtually all of its time focused on Fylde Council's obsession with dogs. By the time the Working Group produced its recommendations to the Operational Management Committee meeting on 15 November 2015, the only mention of other types of uses for PSPOs is the final recommendation - which could be interpreted as "We are not interested in this .... someone else can deal with it":
to recommend appropriate officers investigate the use of PSPO to control other ASB issues such as BBQs and public drinking and to make recommendations to the relevant committees (Tourism and Leisure and Public Protection).
There is nothing whatsoever in the recorded minutes and presentations of the Working Group about the potential impact on animal welfare, the daily lives of law-abiding citizens - particularly the elderly and disabled, Fylde businesses depending on visitors, or people whose livelihood is based on dog walking.
The Working Group has completely ignored the sensible advice from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) about how to go about preparing proposals for PSPOs - particularly with respect to consulting those that will be affected or who can offer practical and positive advice and guidance. Prior to action taken by those opposed to the PSPOs, there is no evidence of consultation with the likes of the RSPCA, The Dogs Trust, Local Business representatives, dog walkers, dog trainers, veterinary practitioners, disabled and elderly people. Nobody affected by, or who could positively inform the proposals, were consulted.
The entire approach to dogs and dog owners has been negative despite at least a quarter of the households in The Fylde being dog owners - and the vast majority of these being responsible and honest people. The minutes of meetings and presentations paint a dismal and depressing picture of our area which is totally out of step with reality.
- Nothing is said about the positive aspects of dog ownership, including health benefits, social benefits for people living on their own or the valuable service dog walkers perform in deterring anti-social behaviour by their presence in parks and the beach areas throughout daylight hours.
- Nothing about the positive impact of people visiting the area with their dogs and bringing trade to our hard-pressed shops and cafes.
- Nothing about the positive aspects of professional dog walkers who perform valuable services to those at work and those unable to walk their dogs due to age or disability.
Perhaps one of the saddest things is the total lack of imagination of this Working Group who think that the only way to improve things is to impose restrictions and bans. There are many positive steps that could be taken - and if the Working Group had made an effort to consult people other than Councillors and Council employees they would have received some excellent ideas.
To give just a couple of examples:
Instead of the wholly negative, costly, and apparently ineffective campaign of leafleting people and inviting them to complain about dog mess, why not install more bins - particularly in areas where dogs are exercised such as the stretch of dunes between Fairhaven and the Beach Cafe.
Fylde Council should look at the recommendations of the Green Flag Awards to promote the Kennel Club 'Big Scoop Campaign'. Here is a quote from them:
First impressions are all too important and the site should look inviting. Issues that must be considered are:The site should be freely accessible to the public.
- Good and safe access
- Welcoming
- Signage
- Equal access for all
Meetings of the PSPO Working Group
Details and analysis of each meeting of which we are aware follows below with the latest at the top.
Meeting on 24 January 2017
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting can be accessed HERE. Detailed information is in the Powerpoint presentation slides that are shown below with our responses.
According to the minutes those present were:
Councillors: Ben Aitken, Alan Clayton, David Eaves (Chairman), Cheryl Little, Albert Pounder, Vince Settle
Officers: Allan Oldfield, Ian Curtis, Kathy Winstanley, Sarah Wilson, Sharon Wadsworth
Here is a summary of the main things that took place at the meeting based on the minutes. The key impacts on dog owners are highlighted.
- The consultation produced 1,996 responses plus detailed responses from the Kennel Club and Dog's Trust.
- It was noted that the comments section of the survey included requests for PSPOs in additional areas. (The Working Group had no appetite for this and declined to consider them further at the present time.)
- Most of the meeting seems to have been occupied by a presentation by Council staff looking at responses to each of the proposed PSPOs - (this is presented and dissected below).
- It was resolved that requests for PSPOs that had come from Town and Parish Councils would be referred back to see whether they are still supported.
- There was a discussion about restrictions at Lytham Green that seems to have been inconclusive.
- It was resolved to speak further with Natural England and the Kennel Club about proposed restrictions related to the Sea Defence project.
- No decision was made about limiting the number of dogs that can be walked and that this would be discussed with representatives of professional dog walkers and the Kennel Club. The Kennel Club had proposed an "accreditation scheme".
- The Legal Officer provided information about challenges to a PSPO (but the minutes do not record what was said). Any decision to repeal byelaws will need to be made by the full Council.
- Recommendations for each PSPO will be drafted, reviewed and finalised and put before a future meeting of the Operational Management Committee after the various meetings and referrals back to Town and Parish Councils have taken place.
Powerpoint Presentation
As this meeting took place behind closed doors like all of the others, we do not know what was said during the presentation of these slides and can only comment on their content alongside the meeting minutes. We can see no evidence of any significant challenges or due diligence from Councillors in the minutes of the meeting and so have added our own observations based on information and documents obtained via Freedom of Information requests and an independent and audited analysis of the data from the SurveyMonkey consultation exercise.
It is clear from our own analysis of the data that most of the PSPOs proposed by the Council recieved only very limited support from responders to the survey - although Fylde Council has published statements that are at odds with the data - overclaiming support in all but one proposal. This will be explained in detail in our responses to the individual slides.
- Much of the prompting for input from external involvement came from Fylde Orders for Dog Control Action Group and the publicity we have generated rather than being down to efforts made by the Council which were minimal and at the last minute according to the responses we have had to Freeedom of Information requests.
- Based on the content of Slide 3, it appears that Fylde Council Legal Department have not fully understood how biased the wording and structure of the survery was or didn't look at it very closely.
- We fail to understand how so many people could have been involved in the survey design but failed to see how badly written it was or challenge the way the questions were put. If there were challenges, these should have been minuted and were not.
- Many of these requests were made by members of Fylde Orders for Dog Control Action Group to get information out into the open. If Fylde Council were to put its money where its mouth is regarding being 'Open', the minutes of the PSPO Working Group would have published on its website which would have saved many of the FOI requests.
- The claimed response time does not tally with our experience unless this just means "how long to issue an acknowledgement". Whilst we agree that most responses resulted in meaningful responses within the 20-day legal requirement, about half of the FOIs we have raised took around 20 days even when this simply required the release of meeting minutes that must already have existed.
- The Working Group is making recommendations that will affect the whole Borough, asked people for their views but couldn't be bothered to read them - just picking out 10% - allegedly selected at random. They should have studied ALL of the comments and not just a sample - another example of the contempt with which the Working Group is treating Fylde residents.
- We do not pretend that all comments supported our views but here are just a few of the other comments the Working Group might have taken note of. We encourage everyone, especially Fylde Councillors, to read the whole list. It can be accessed from our Consultation page HERE.:
- Draconian measures from a council working against the wishes of its residents. Waste of law abiding tax payers money. An exercise in raising money for a council who cannot manage their finances adequately. Disproportionate measures for a conceived problem that does not exist. Biased questionnaire. Ridiculous proposals mean an increase in carbon footprint driving to Council designated areas. Think global warming. Beauty of living on Fylde Coast means beach and grassed areas easily accessible to all. Should be free of restrictions. Let's all exist happily together and combat obesity and ill health. Wardens with minimal training should not be able to issue fixed penalty notices. Only courts and police should have this power.
- I am a visitor to Lytham and St Annes regularly in summer with my daughter who has two dogs. We enjoy the day out as the dogs can be exercised on the Green and she takes them on to the beach before we go for fish and chips at Seniors. We would have no reason to visit Lytham from cleveleys (where I live) without the opportunity to walk the dogs in the first place. I think these laws are draconian. I am 87 years old and have seen nothing but an increase in bye laws and more red tape that is an excuse to make money.
- There is no objective evidence of the need for these draconian proposals. I am disabled and use a buggy and the Blackpool North playing fields is the only place I can accompany my dog when he's being exercised. Many elderly and disabled old people exercise their dogs on this field, By all means ban dogs whilst football games are on, but there is no evidence of the need for a total exclusion.
- I am not a dog owner but object strongly to the ridiculous persecution of those that are in a set of proposals that are not necessary. Why is all this effort being spent? Why don't you just use existing laws? You are stirring up trouble in a happy community and we did not vote you in to do that.
- If you are going to adopt such dog-hostile attitudes I will go elsewhere with my dogs and business. Shame as up to now it has been a great place for a day out. I wonder what local businesses think of this?
- Just enforce the no fouling rules. people get a lot of pleasure and companionship from owning a dog and these new proposed rules are just stupid.
Note that there is no accompanying slide listing the areas where people said that they want existing restrictions removed.
- There is no reason to assume that only those familiar with the rural areas voted for specific questions about them - no information was gathered about where responders lived other than whether they were from The Fylde or outside areas so this is pure speculation and it is dishonest to discard data for this reason.
- Ignoring 'no comment' responses to questions is a sneaky but very clumsy and obvious way to exaggerate the degree of support for the proposals.
- Having manipulated the data by this 'sleight of hand', the Council proceeds to claim a level of support for its proposals that is not supported by the data and the effect of this is apparent in the following slides.
- The support claimed for deailing with fouling is the only valid item on the slide.
- All other claims made about support are overstated as a result of discarding inconvenient data with only the first four items on this list having 55% or more support.
- Fouling: Support 88%, Object 12%, No Comment - 0%
- Cemetery: Support 57%, Object 17%, No Comment - 26%, Level of support overclaimed 20%
- Highway: Support 60%, Object 23%, No Comment - 17%, Level of support overclaimed 13%
- Play areas: Support 55%, Object 25%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 14%
- Car parks: Support 51%, Object 32%, No Comment - 17%, Level of support overclaimed 11%
- Amenity beach: Support 46%, Object 29%, No Comment - 25%, Level of support overclaimed 15%
- Water features: Support 45%, Object 35%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 11%
- None of the claims about support made on this slide are valid
- All claims made about support are overstated as a result of discarding inconvenient data by amounts between 10% and 24%.
- Cenotaph Gardens: Support 30%, Object 25%, No Comment - 45%, Level of support overclaimed 24%
- Rose Gardens Freck.: Support 29%, Object 26%, No Comment - 45%, Level of support overclaimed 24%
- Nature Reserve: Support 37%, Object 41%, No Comment - 22%, Level of support overclaimed 12%
- Ashton Gardens: Support 37%, Object 41%, No Comment - 22%, Level of support overclaimed 11%
- Memorial Gardens Freck.: Support 29%, Object 31%, No Comment - 40%, Level of support overclaimed 19%
- Meadow Park: Support 25%, Object 29%, No Comment - 46%, Level of support overclaimed 22%
- Lowther Gardens: Support 37%, Object 41%, No Comment - 22%, Level of support overclaimed 10%
- Larbreck Play Area: Support 25%, Object 30%, No Comment - 45%, Level of support overclaimed 21%
- None of the claims about support made on this slide are valid
- All claims made about support are overstated as a result of discarding inconvenient data by amounts between 6% and 21%.
- Promenade and Gardens: Support 36%, Object 44%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 9%
- Staining Rise: Support 23%, Object 29%, No Comment - 48%, Level of support overclaimed 21%
- Fairhaven: Support 34%, Object 46%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 8%
- Lytham Green: Support 33%, Object 46%, No Comment - 21%, Level of support overclaimed 9%
- Hope Street: Support 29%, Object 41%, No Comment - 30%, Level of support overclaimed 13%
- Derby Rd. Wesham: Support 24%, Object 33%, No Comment - 43%, Level of support overclaimed 18%
- Fleetwood Rd. Wesham: Support 24%, Object 33%, No Comment - 43%, Level of support overclaimed 18%
- Orchard/Nature reserve Elswick: Support 21%, Object 31%, No Comment - 48%, Level of support overclaimed 19%
- Bush Lane, Freck.: Support 24%, Object 35%, No Comment - 41%, Level of support overclaimed 16%
- Granny's Bay: Support 27%, Object 53%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 6%
- Sea Defence area: Support 26%, Object 52%, No Comment - 22%, Level of support overclaimed 8%
- Blackpool Road: Support 23%, Object 47%, No Comment - 30%, Level of support overclaimed 10%
The number of people supporting a four-dog limit was just 29% and there were a large number of written comments saying how ridiculous such a limit would be as it takes no account of the size or nature of the dogs or the abilities of the handler.
The unadulterated data from SurveyMonkey shows the following:
- No limit: 28%, Four dogs 29%%, Five dogs 4%, Six dogs 8%, 7-10 dogs 4%, 4 or more under direction: 7%, No response: 20%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 21%.
- Even though we support this proposal, we note that Fylde Council has produced no objective evidence to show that there is a problem that needs addressing.
- Support 57%, Object 17%, No Comment - 26%, Level of support overclaimed 21%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 13%.
- Even though we support this proposal, we note that Fylde Council has produced no objective evidence to show that there is a problem.
- Support 60%, Object 23%, No Comment - 17%, Level of support overclaimed 13%
- We are appalled by the outrageous claim made on television by Council Official Sarah Wilson that dog owners are allowing their dogs to enter children's play areas and both foul and damage play equipment. Freedom of Information requests have disclosed that there is absolutely no objective evidence about this and, even if damage that has been attributed, though not proven to be, due to dogs is accepted at face value, it amounts to an average of one incident per year in the entire Borough.
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 14%.
- Support 55%, Object 25%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 14%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 15%.
- If signage was improved - particularly for people walking along the beach from other areas, such problems as there are would be reduced without the need for a specific PSPO.
- Support 46%, Object 29%, No Comment - 25%, Level of support overclaimed 15%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 10%.
- Support 37%, Object 41%, No Comment - 22%, Level of support overclaimed 10%
The data from SurveyMonkey shows the following and support is overstated by 11%:
- Support 45%, Object 35%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 11%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 24%.
- Support 30%, Object 25%, No Comment - 45%, Level of support overclaimed 24%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 24%.
- Support 29%, Object 26%, No Comment - 45%, Level of support overclaimed 24%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 12%.
- Support 37%, Object 41%, No Comment - 22%, Level of support overclaimed 12%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 11%.
- Support 37%, Object 41%, No Comment - 22%, Level of support overclaimed 11%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 19%.
- Support 29%, Object 31%, No Comment - 40%, Level of support overclaimed 19%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 19%.
- Support 29%, Object 31%, No Comment - 40%, Level of support overclaimed 19%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 22%.
- Support 25%, Object 29%, No Comment - 46%, Level of support overclaimed 22%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 21%.
- Support 25%, Object 30%, No Comment - 45%, Level of support overclaimed 21%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 21%.
- Support 23%, Object 29%, No Comment - 48%, Level of support overclaimed 21%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 9%.
- Support 36%, Object 44%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 9%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 13%.
- Support 29%, Object 41%, No Comment - 30%, Level of support overclaimed 13%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 8%.
- Support 34%, Object 46%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 8%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 9%.
- Support 33%, Object 46%, No Comment - 21%, Level of support overclaimed 9%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 18%.
- Support 24%, Object 33%, No Comment - 43%, Level of support overclaimed 18%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 18%.
- Support 24%, Object 33%, No Comment - 43%, Level of support overclaimed 18%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 19%.
- Support 21%, Object 31%, No Comment - 48%, Level of support overclaimed 19%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 16%.
- Support 24%, Object 35%, No Comment - 41%, Level of support overclaimed 16%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 6%.
- Support 27%, Object 53%, No Comment - 20%, Level of support overclaimed 6%
- As a result of discarding inconvenient data, the claims made by Fylde Council about support is overstated by 8%.
- Support 26%, Object 52%, No Comment - 22%, Level of support overclaimed 8%
If a Council wants to propose draconian restrictions, they should at the very least be objectively justified, all interested parties consulted and a pragmatic rather than prejudiced and dogmatic approach applied. Given the unprofessional and biased way Fylde Council has approached these proposals it can hardly be surprised it is meeting opposition.
Meeting on 23 August 2016
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting can be accessed HERE.
According to the minutes those present were:
Councillors: Ben Aitken, David Eaves, Cheryl Little, Albert Pounder, Vince Settle
Officers: Allan Oldfield, Kathy Winstanley, Sarah Wilson, Sharon Wadsworth, Tara Walsh (although she seems not to be on the list of
those appointed to this group)
Here is a summary of the main things that took place at the meeting based on the minutes. The key impacts on dog owners are once again extensive and are highlighted.
- Body cameras for 'Dog Enforcement Wardens' have been purchased from existing budgets and recommendations to be amended to approve their use immediately.
- Following discussions with Parish and Town Councils the proposals to be amended to include additional on-lead restrictions or outright bans at Kirkham Memorial Park, Larbreck Play Area, and Orchard Nature Reserve.
- Following discussions with the Parks Department, the proposals to be amended to include additional restrictions at Lytham St. Annes Nature Reserve, and Grannies Bay.
- A recommendation should be made to request a one-off budget increase of £12k to cover the cost of signage and education related to dog PSPOs.
- The proposals would be amended to include an additional column in the Appendix specifying restrictions to provide justification based on complaints received.
- Officers to provide the Police and Crime Commissioner with a copy of the final report and invite the PCC to attend or provide feedback to the committee meeting.
- A final report to go to the Operational Management Committee with a recommended implementation date for the PSPOs of 1 June 2017.
- Councillor Eaves "commended the superb, informative and high quality of the work that, Sarah Wilson in particular, had provided to the group. He believed that the in depth knowledge and information provided had aided the group to make informed recommendations."
Comments
- As with the earlier meetings of this committee, there is no evidence in the minutes of any due diligence being performed by the Councillors in attendance. It is almost like the meeting took the view "Does anyone feel like adding some more restrictions while we are at it? - we might just as well".
- As in previous meetings, no objective evidence was provided to justify any of the additions to the proposed restrictions and bans.
- In commending the "superb, informative and high quality work" of Council staff, Councillor Eaves must either be very gullible or was being sarcastic.
Meeting on 26 July 2016
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting can be accessed HERE.
According to the minutes those present were:
Councillors: Ben Aitken, David Eaves, Cheryl Little, Albert Pounder, Vince Settle
Officers: Allan Oldfield, Kathy Winstanley, Sarah Wilson, Sharon Wadsworth
Here is a summary of the main things that took place at the meeting based on the minutes. The key impacts on dog owners are extensive and are highlighted:
- It was confirmed that the cost of body cameras for the dog wardens would be £1,150 plus VAT for two units
- Recommendations would be made for PSPOs for the whole borough for:
- Dogs must be kept on a lead at all times on all public highways
- Requirement for the removal of dog faeces at all times
- No dogs allowed in children’s play areas
- Clarification was sort (sic) to confirm that children’s play areas included all enclosed play areas, bowling greens, pitch and putt / golf, skate parks, trim trails, BMX tracks, tennis courts and area designated as MUGA (Multiple Use Games Area’s)
- A recommendation was made for a PSPO for maximum four (4) dogs under the control of one person
- Recommendation that a 'zero tolerance' approach would be taken rather than discretionary.
- Various Byelaws to be Replaced/Amended/Repealed (please see the minutes for details as they are extensive)
- Dog Exclusion Byelaws already existing to be replaced by PSPOs - St Annes beach, Cenotaph Gardens and Rose Memorial Gardens
- PSPOs to be recommended across the borough for:
- Water Bodies i.e. fountains, paddling pools, ponds and lakes – Exclusion, no dogs allowed.
- Car Parks – Dogs on leads at all times
- Lytham Cemetery – Dogs on leads at all times
- Grannies Bay - area between Stannah Bank to slipway, dogs on lead by direction at all times with the exception of between 1st May to 30th September whereby dogs must be kept on a lead.
- Football Pitches
- Blackpool Road North playing field – Recommend new PSPO for dogs to be on a lead. Request to St Annes Town Council to look at sectioning off an area for a dog run area.
- Park View playing fields – Recommend new PSPO to exclude dogs from the football pitches.
- Consideration of further restrictions proposed by Parish/Town Councils at Staining, Elswick and Wesham and Freckleton. Of these it was agreed to recommend a new PSPO for dogs on leads at all times at Bush Lane Playing Fields
- Commendation of by Councillor Eames for "the high quality work that Sarah Wilson had put into the presentations and supporting information."
Powerpoint Presentation
As this meeting also took place behind closed doors with no apparent desire to disclose the minutes, we do not know what was said during the presentation of these slides and can only comment on their content. Normally in formal committees and meetings, presentations are subject to challenges and queries, but there is no record of this having taken place recorded in the minutes of the meeting so it is reasonable to assume that everyone present at the meeting completely agreed with the content. As we believe firmly in 'due diligence', we have provided comments and challenges in retrospect based on information obtained via Freedom of Information requests which are cited as appropriate.
"Our aim in reforming the anti-social behaviour powers is to give the police, councils and others more effective means of protecting victims, not to penalise particular behaviours. Frontline professionals must use the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 responsibly and proportionately, and only where necessary to protect the public".
"Your dog strayed into a 'lead only' area before you noticed the sign? - How unfortunate for you - have a FPN. Welcome to The Fylde and have a nice day".
In Appendix A to the document put forward for Decision Item 4 of the Operational Management Committee meeting on 15 November 2016, the Working Group included a note purporting to support a ban on dogs from water feature suggested that this was for "the protection of dogs" from water-borne infections and plants such as algae. Strangely there is no reference to risks to children and people; if the water feature is really a danger than maybe it needs to be drained? There have been no reported complaints about dogs damaging water features.
Meeting on 14 July 2016
Minutes
The minutes of the meeting can be accessed HERE.
According to the minutes those present were:
Councillors: Ben Aitken, David Eaves, Cheryl Little, Albert Pounder, Vince Settle
Officers: Allan Oldfield, Kathy Winstanley, Sarah Wilson, Sharon Wadsworth
Here is a summary of the main things that took place at the meeting based on the minutes:
- David Eaves was elected as chairman
- Alan Oldfield gave an overview of how the Working Group would be structured
- Sarah Wilson gave a powerpoint presentation (which appears to have taken up the bulk of the meeting and which is dissected below)
- A recommendation was made to provide bodycams for dog wardens
- Consideration was given to budgets and signage
- Timescales were considered
- Other uses for PSPOs should be discussed at future meetings
Powerpoint Presentation
As this meeting took place behind closed doors with no apparent desire to disclose the minutes, we do not know what was said during the presentation of these slides and can only comment on their content. Despite a couple of 'token' slides covering other matters, the presentation was focused on dogs.
Normally in formal committees and meetings, presentations are subject to challenges and queries, but there is no record of this having taken place recorded in the minutes of the meeting so it is reasonable to assume that everyone present at the meeting completely agreed with the content. As we believe firmly in 'due diligence', we have provided comments and challenges in retrospect based on information obtained via Freedom of Information requests which are cited as appropriate.
"Our aim in reforming the anti-social behaviour powers is to give the police, councils and others more effective means of protecting victims, not to penalise particular behaviours. Frontline professionals must use the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 responsibly and proportionately, and only where necessary to protect the public".
As previously stated, Fylde Council is unable to provide any objective data about complaints relating to any of the specific sites included in their proposals as justification - see the response to Freedom of Information request #151246 HERE, and confirmed that they have no record of even one complaint about people walking multiple dogs - see the response to Freedom of Information request #151247 HERE. No account has been taken of the valuable service professional dog walkers do for members of the community who are unable to exercise their dogs.
