Agenda item

To consider a joint report by the Communications, Marketing & Leisure and Corporate Communications & Marketing Managers (copy enclosed) regarding progress of the Anti-Dog Fouling Campaign and plans going forward.

11.20 a.m.

The Communication, Marketing & Leisure and Corporate Communications & Marketing Managers submitted a joint report (previously circulated) regarding progress of the Anti-Dog Fouling Campaign following its soft launch in February. 

 

Officers provided details of the activities carried out to date in addressing dog fouling issues including the substantial marketing campaign and drive to educate people together with robust enforcement action in order to reduce the number of incidents.  Key hotspot areas had been identified and monitored and a number of supporting activities were being planned for the future.  A power point presentation was also shown detailing promotional materials; press coverage; the marketing plan and the mapping of hotspot areas.  Updated statistics collated from the Customer Services Management System and calls from the dedicated Freephone number were also provided.  The marketing campaign involved a drip feed approach in order to continually reinforce the message and encourage communities to become involved and report problems.

 

The Public Protection Manager provided details of the enforcement approach with Kingdom Security Services being employed to address issues around dog fouling and littering.  North Wales Police had also instructed Police Community Support Officers and Community Beat Managers to issue fixed penalty notices and provide information to the council on problem areas.

 

Members welcomed the Anti-Dog Fouling Campaign as a proactive way of addressing dog fouling within the county together with robust enforcement action.  The committee was pleased to note the measures taken to engage with the public and the positive feedback received together with an increase in the number of reported incidents to identify hotspot areas and target offenders.  During debate members took the opportunity to raise questions with the officers regarding various aspects of the campaign and sought further details regarding enforcement action and overall costs.  The following concerns and comments were also raised –

 

·         the need to target rural areas as part of the campaign and undertake enforcement action and high visibility patrols in those areas to deter offenders

·         highlighted persistent problems at Moel Famau and the need to take the matter up with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) management to address the issue, particularly the AONB’s resistance to the siting of waste bins in the AONB

·         delays in locating dog bins in problem areas identified by members

·         the need for both covert and high visibility enforcement patrols and professional and courteous officers

·         concerns regarding stray dogs and cases where owners let their dogs wander unaccompanied

·         the presence of old signage within communities which may cause confusion

·         the importance of engaging with the community in order to work together to tackle dog fouling issues

·         the need to review the effectiveness of the campaign and associated costs

·         concerns that the number of fixed penalty notices issued for littering far exceed those issued for dog fouling

·         advocated greater use of social media as a marketing tool, and

·         members detailed a number of problem areas within their communities which would benefit from dog bins and enforcement action and made requests for literature to disseminate in their areas.

 

Officers acknowledged members’ points and responded as follows –

 

·         reported upon the programme of relocating signage and promotional material around the county targeting  hotspot areas and monitoring the impact

·         dog control orders were being considered as a means of addressing specific problem areas which may be applied to sites such as Moel Famau/AONB

·         119 dog bins had been purchased for siting in areas identified by members

·         a mixture of both covert and high visibility enforcement patrols were undertaken as appropriate depending upon circumstances

·         other public protection officers were responsible for collecting stray dogs and any information in that regard would be welcomed and acted upon

·         following the introduction of dog control orders a review of signage would be carried out to ensure it was appropriate and relevant

·         welcomed the involvement of the wider community in addressing the problems and provided a number of examples of initiatives involving schools and town/community councils which would be encouraged

·         the intention to review the effectiveness of the campaign after six months and report back to this committee on the findings

·         noted the problem areas identified by members and requests for promotional literature.

 

In terms of costs and income generation associated with enforcement duties it was established that income from fixed penalty notices was split between Kingdom Security Services (KSS) £45 and the Council £30.  KSS recovered the fines but cases of non-payment were referred to Legal Services for prosecution.  Officers also advised that KSS officers were salaried but there was some element of performance related pay.  Following further discussion it was –

 

RESOLVED that –

 

(a)       subject to members’ comments above, the report highlighting the progress and impact of the approach to addressing the dog fouling issue in the county be received and noted, and

 

(b)       a further progress report be received by the committee in approximately six months’ time to include full costings of the campaign and enforcement action, impact of the campaign, statistics, information on the number of legal cases pursued/outstanding, and comparison on the number of fixed penalty notices issued for dog fouling and littering.  [Hywyn Williams / Jamie Groves / Gareth Watson / Vicki Shenton-Morris / Emlyn Jones to action]

 

At this point the Chair left the meeting and the Vice Chair, Councillor Huw Williams presided over the remaining items of business.