Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning and Public Protection (copy attached) seeking the Committee’s views on proposed actions to control and manage the County’s ‘seagull’ population.

10.15am – 11am

The Lead Member for Public Realm introduced the report (previously circulated) and informed the Committee that despite the fact that seagulls were regarded by many as pests they, similar to other wild birds, along with their nests and eggs were protected by law under the provisions of the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000.  Many ‘seagulls’ were also afforded additional protection as their populations were falling in the wild.  However, the Council acknowledged that in recent years seagull behaviour had become an ever increasing problem for the Authority, residents, visitors and local businesses and therefore action was necessary to minimise their detrimental impact on the county. 

The Lead Member drew members’ attention to Appendix 2 to the report which contained a draft action plan to address the problems caused by seagulls.  He advised that this action plan had already been considered by the Council’s Senior Leadership Team (SLT) and officers were now seeking members’ views on the proposed actions along with any other actions which Committee members wished to put forward.  A number of the appendices attached to the report highlighted the complexities of dealing with problems relating to seagulls, and the various solutions trialled in other areas of the UK to address problems caused by them.

Committee members’ highlighted problems within their communities caused by seagulls and how some of these problems were exacerbated by human conduct and bad practices e.g. feeding the birds, putting refuse bags out the night before they were due to be collected, restaurant and fast food outlet’s food waste practices etc.  They also listed a number of initiatives of which they were aware other local authorities had trialled in a bid to try and mitigate seagull nuisance and control their populations i.e. the erection of bunting/balloons, netting/spikes on roofs, pricking eggs in nests, contraception etc. 

The extent of the nuisance and prevalence of seagulls in the county was highlighted by members who referred to a retail unit in Rhyl which, when the roof area was inspected, had 71 seagull nests on it.  Another member referred to a school within the county which had spent money from its budget to fund work to safeguard the building and pupils from seagulls.

Responding to members’ questions the Lead Member and the Head of Planning and Public Protection:

·         Agreed with members that problems caused by seagulls were as much the fault of humans as the fault of seagulls.  There was a definite need to educate people in relation to feeding seagulls and how to better manage the disposal of their household waste;

·         Confirmed that similarly there was a need to educate food outlets on how to manage the disposal of their waste etc.;

·         Advised that seagull problems were becoming as prevalent inland as they were along the coastal area; and

·         Confirmed that SLT was of the view that a multi-faceted approach towards the management of seagulls was required, and whilst they had some concerns in relation to the practicalities of enforcing any potential byelaws on the feeding of seagulls there may be merit in passing a byelaw from the perspective of sending out a strong message to residents and visitors alike that the practice would not be welcomed or tolerated.

The Committee supported all the actions proposed by SLT.  In addition members recommended that the following steps be taken in relation to managing seagulls across the county:

·         as seagulls were known to be able to fly up to 60 miles during night time, and did not recognise county borders, it was key for the Council to draw their proposed actions to manage them to the attention of other local authorities, seeking their assistance and support to adopt a similar approach;

·         all county council establishments should be ‘fitted’ with seagull deterrent measures;

·         where there was a known problem of people feeding seagulls the Council’s Community Safety Enforcement Team should be asked to issue warnings to individuals who fed the birds and if persuasion was not sufficient fixed penalty notices (FPNs) should be served;

·         in order to raise the public’s awareness of the problem of feeding seagulls and to act as a deterrent, to consider introducing a byelaw or a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) to prevent the feeding of seagulls;

·         undertake a communication campaign to educate residents and visitors not to feed the seagulls, drawing to their attention the dangers to both humans and the seagulls themselves of this practice (similar to the approach taken by zoos);

·         undertake an awareness campaign when distributing refuse calendars on the need to put the refuse out on the day it was due to be collected and on ensuring that it is not accessible to seagulls, other pests or animals i.e. a ‘terms of business’ for waste collection

·         Introduce a ‘Seagull Charter’ for commercial businesses to ensure that their food waste is secure and not easily accessible to birds or animals when left outside;

·         consider undertaking ‘out of hours’ enforcement action if it transpired that food waste was being left out in an unsecured manner on a regular basis; and

·         explore the effectiveness and potential cost of using contraceptives to manage the seagull population.

At the conclusion of the discussion the Committee:

Resolved: - that members

(i)   had read, understood and taken account of the Well-being Impact Assessment (Appendix 1) as part of its consideration; and

(ii)   subject to the inclusion of above recommended actions, support the corporate actions agreed by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) as contained in the Table at Appendix 2 of the report.