Southwark consulting on borough-wide dog control orders

[first mate]

DJKQ,

Indeed. I'd be far more worried about my youngster being contaminated by rat urine- now that really is a potential killer. We are all only 12 feet away from any rat population in the city- the burgeoning ratty- populace next to DKH Sainbos is just one example.

[a bit dizzee]

Islington tried a similar scheme of 'zero tolerance'. In the first six months, 20 dog wardens issued, on average, one penalty every two days. ?40 a day for the wages of 20 blokes wondering around.

Good luck getting this one through in the current climate. Pointless busy work.

[DJKillaQueen]

?40 a day for the wages of 20 blokes wondering around.

That to me is a perfect example of an insane use of resources and tax payers money. I think more would be achieved in targetting problem areas (be it a park, street or area) by giving out free poop bags and scoops to owners and trying to re-educate bad owners. It would cost far less and would probably be more effective too.

[first mate]

Hmmm, and you have to conclude that Southwark would be aware of the failure of the scheme in Islington, so what is the survey all about? If enough people give a negative response to dogs in children's areas and being offlead generally, and they will because the of way the questions have been designed,then the one thing Southwark would be able to do is to start to ban dogs from parks or parts of the parks. The target would be the decent dog owner (easy target). Those who dislike dogs would be happy so Southwark could claim success, it would also open up parks for "other" uses.

[cate]

a bit dizzee Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Islington tried a similar scheme of 'zero

> tolerance'. In the first six months, 20 dog

> wardens issued, on average, one penalty every two

> days. ?40 a day for the wages of 20 blokes

> wondering around.

>

> Good luck getting this one through in the current

> climate. Pointless busy work.

Did they cease to operate this scheme?

[TonyQuinn]

Small price to pay for dealing with this menace!

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?40 a day for the wages of 20 blokes wondering

> around.

>

> That to me is a perfect example of an insane use

> of resources and tax payers money. I think more

> would be achieved in targetting problem areas (be

> it a park, street or area) by giving out free poop

> bags and scoops to owners and trying to re-educate

> bad owners. It would cost far less and would

> probably be more effective too.

[first mate]

Golly TQ, if that's your idea of a "menace", I'd love to have your life.

[a bit dizzee]

Don't know if Islington are continuing with the scheme, tbh. Hard to justify in its current guise, though. More dog bins and bags available at all dog bins wouldn't be a bad start. There are precisely zero dog bins on my ten-minute route from home to the Rye with my veteran hound, and while this is not an issue as I am a lovely, friendly, cuddly, responsible dog-walker, it does show that this would be an excellent place to start. Bit cheaper than 20 wardens, too.

[DJKillaQueen]

Wages of 20 employees at minimum wage (?5.93 per hour) equals ?4744 per week or ?246,688 per year and that doesn't include London weighting, pension provision and the various other costs to the employer. Southwarks annual budget is around ?3.5 million so you are seriuosly suggesting that spending 7+% of the annual budget chasing dog poo every year is good value? Especially as it won't make much difference anyway.

Dizee's point about more bins etc is a good one and that is where money would be best spent.

[TonyQuinn]

There's great elegance in your maths but I really doubt that Southwark council is really proposing spending nearly 10 percent on clearing up the dog mess.....it's a statement of intent and for that, I tip my hat to them. Bravo Southwark, bravo!

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wages of 20 employees at minimum wage (?5.93 per

> hour) equals ?4744 per week or ?246,688 per year

> and that doesn't include London weighting, pension

> provision and the various other costs to the

> employer. Southwarks annual budget is around ?3.5

> million so you are seriuosly suggesting that

> spending 7+% of the annual budget chasing dog poo

> every year is good value? Especially as it won't

> make much difference anyway.

>

> Dizee's point about more bins etc is a good one

> and that is where money would be best spent.

[computedshorty]

There is nothing feared more than humiliation by the public.

To save the great expense that Wardens / Prosecutions would cause.

Bring back the Stocks.

This would give education to the young of our History.

Show that the offence was being dealt with.

Humiliation the Offender.

Giving you the opportunity to show your feeling.

A set of Stocks could be erected on Peckham Rye.

With the addition of two Chamber pots to place the feet of the accused.

One placed under the chin, these could be topped up with the contents of Pooper bags.

Being pilloried, or put in the stocks, was a common punishment for civil crimes in the 15th-18th century. Criminals were set in a chair outdoors with their hands and/or feet, locked into holes in short span of wooden fence. The holes were placed in such a way as to be physically uncomfortable for the criminal. The stocks were placed in a public space so that the criminal would be subject to ridicule. This shaming was part of the punishment. Often townspeople would jeer at the offender, or even throw spoiled fruit at him.

[DJKillaQueen]

Well how many wardens do you think it will take Tony to issue all the on spot fines required to rid Southwark of dog poo or even just to make a noticeable difference?

A statement of intent is a waste of time in itself as well. I'd also add that a survey designed to gauge public opinion (as this is) is also pointless if money isn't going to be spent acting upon it's findings.

[peterstorm1985]

Good idea about the stocks computedshorty, but were you intending to put the owners or the dogs in them?

[computedshorty]

May I suggest that after filling in the application form for Dog Warden a short trial spell in the stocks should be given to acquaint them with the process, this could be offered to prospective Traffic Wardens if found to be over zealous, as a Claus would be incorporated in their contract of misconduct.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKillaQueen,

Southwark COuncil's budget per annum roughly ?1,500M not ?3.5M as you've reported.

But your point about Southwark not emplying more people is valid. Depends what Labour in Southwark decide to do about Community Wardens.

[DJKillaQueen]

Funny that because at the last Nunhead and Peckham Rye CC meeting..Fiona Colley said it was around 320 million per annum and indeed the Budget Book 2010/11 says;

General fund revenue budget

On 23 February 2010 council assembly set a balanced general fund revenue budget of ?320m for

2010/11 with a 0% increase in the level of council tax for Southwark?s element.

And the year before;

General fund revenue budget

On 23rd February 2009 council assembly set a balanced general fund revenue budget of ?315m for 2009/10 with a 0% increase in the level of council tax for Southwark?s element.

But either way....wardens chasing dog poo is not cost effective.

[peterstorm1985]

Am I the only one confused about how much budget DKKillaQueen is quoting.

"Fiona Colley said it was around 3.2 per annum"

"On 23 February 2010 council assembly set a balanced general fund revenue budget of ?320m"

One is 100 times the other

Then James says it is is ?1,500, which is 50 times more again.

I've just checked the Southwark budget book and it does says ?320M so the dog warden calculation would come to 0.077% of the revenue budget not 7%

[DJKillaQueen]

Sorry I meant 320....full stop typo error (have editted it now). Fiona Colley said it was 320 million (it was followed by a point on the waste of 100 million on the call centre) which is in line with the budget report. James seems to not know what the annual budget of his own council is.

[Southwark Council]

Hi All,

Thanks very much for your feedback so far (and apologies for the lengthy response!). We will make sure your comments from the forum are fed into the consultation.

A few of you have voiced concerns about this being anti-dog owners or anti-dogs. Just to stress, this is not the case at all, we know that the majority of dog owners in Southwark are very responsible and their dogs, well behaved.

This consultation is about tackling the anti-social behaviour caused by irresponsible dog owners. We would like to know the extent to which you feel legislation specifically relating to this should be adopted within the borough.

The Dog Control Orders Regulations 2006 empowers Local Authorities to make Dog Control Orders for:

-Failing to remove dog faeces.

-Not putting, and keeping, a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer.

-Permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded.

-Taking more than a specified number of dogs onto land.

-Not keeping a dog on the lead.

To be clear, at this stage, we are only consulting on the first three points. This decision was made after taking advice from key partners such as Battersea Dogs Home and the RSPCA as well as considering the number of dog related complaints received from the public. We also had to consider the cost of enforcing and implementing these orders should they be introduced.

With regards the questionnaire, this has been structured around the above points. @firstmate - you pointed out that further clarification is needed about what constitutes a children's playground. This is a fair point and we have now amended the survey to provide additional context. For reference, this refers to an area with children's play equipment that is gated and fenced off.

Should the consultation conclude that there is a need for the legislation, this would be a borough wide-order but would be enforced on an intelligence-led basis, some of which would come from residents.

The new powers would be targeted to specific problem areas and operations, and would move around the borough as needs are identified.

It would primarily be enforced by community wardens. They already have a wide range of powers and responsibilities and the Dog Control Order would be carried out in addition to their current duties.

Susan Hunter, the area manager for the community warden service, referenced some of the work we've already done in the borough to promote responsible dog ownership here:

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,540746,page=3

Early next year we will publicise a Dog Action Strategy which supports responsible ownership, tackles irresponsible ownership, and clamps down on dangerous dogs and their owners. Public feedback on our strategy will be very welcome.

Although we will continue to participate in the forum, if you have any specific questions or concerns the quickest way to receive an answer is by emailing [email protected].

Thanks very much again,

Tracy Dickinson

Safer Southwark Partnership Team Manager

[first mate]

Tracy Dickinson,

Thank you for addressing some of the concerns on the forum. I welcome the fact that you have amended the survey to clarify what constitutes a children's play area. I suppose my fear, shared by others, is that this clause of the proposed Southwark DCO's can be used in future to deny access to areas of parks that are currently open to dog owners. For instance, there are areas on Peckham Rye that are fenced off (The American and Japanese gardens) but that are currently used by children and by dog owners. Might these be designated children's play areas in future?

We are also aware of the desirability of some local parks as areas that schools can use for sports, presumably such areas would be even more desirable if dogs were banned from large sections- you'd only have to put up a fence. Can Southwark give some reassurance that this is not on the cards?

Most sensible people would not allow their dogs to run amok in an area that is fenced off for use by children, particularly if children are present and so it is a minority of "offenders" we are referring to. Ditto, irresponsible ownership of dangerous dogs is just one example of a serious of anti social behaviours that go hand in hand. Greater detail on how Southwark plans to effectively deal with offenders would be helpful. For instance, I have witnessed various types of anti social behaviour in local parks (not all involving dogs) and on only one occasion could I find a warden to report this to, despite attempts to find one on every occasion.

Dangerous Dogs are a discrete area of criminality that has complex roots and mixing it up with general dog ownership is not that helpful.

I would welcome moves to enforce people to keep their dogs on lead on public streets at all times, I would also welcome moves to enforce people to pick up after their dogs. However, without the necessary manpower it is hard to see how this can be achieved. I fear that the DCO's will be toothless in practice and that the only thing you will really be empowered to do is perhaps to limit the freedoms of decent dog owners in our parks at some point in the future.

[peterstorm1985]

We can but hope that the toothlessness is only similar to not putting in your dentures (no I haven't got there yet). If you see something you want to eat then put in the snappers and have a bite, the rest of the time leave them in the glass. So if there is a dangerous dog that needs dealing with, breach of orders for minor offences might provide for the restraint of the animal prior to anything dangerous happening.