Update December 2015
After extended discussions at three different committees of the TRD Council the Public Space Protection Order (in relation to dogs) has finally been agreed.
From April 1st 2016 there will be,
1 Enhanced powers to enforce dog fouling regulations, right across the District.
2 Dogs must be kept on leads in the open air eating area at the café’ in the Aquadrome.
3 Dogs must be put on their lead if directed to do so by an authorized officer.
4 Dogs to be excluded from play areas, fenced picnic areas, skate parks and the field used for grazing sheep on Chorleywood House Estate, but only when the sheep are present.
5 The number of dogs walked by any one person is restricted to 4.
Photo © Mr Bones
Background Post from April 2015
Three Rivers have responded online to furious dog owners’ concerns about the implications of the survey on 3RDC website concerning the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) that seeks to replace and extend existing powers relating to dog fouling and dog control in public places.
Many local dog owners have written to 3RDC angry that results of this survey (Leading Questions) could result in restrictions on walking dogs freely in public places in and around Chorleywood.
3RDC posted this in response on their website which has sparked further debate
Hi, Can I explain this please? The proposal is not for dogs on leads throughout the district, just the area immediately surrounding the cafe at the Aquadrome. The proposal for dogs on leads if directed is district wide but will only apply to people who are allowing their dogs to be a nuisance to other members of the community. It will only be used if appropriate. The exclusion at grazed area is the fenced off fields at Chorleywood House Estate where sheep are grazed – this is because there have ben many incidents where dog owners have allowed their dogs to harass the sheep causing severe injuries and death. DEFRA’s guidelines say maximum 6 dogs but local authorities can restrict. This is to enable us to tackle irresponsible dog owners only. Responsible dog owners will not be affected by this. Unfortunately for some reason the draft order showing the maps where the dog on lead and exclusion sites are has not been put on the website, just the survey. I will get this rectified on Monday so everyone can see exactly what the proposal is. The majority of dog owners are responsible but there is a minority who are not, current legislation does not cover these situations but these orders will help us to do so. Hope this helps a bit to clarify things.
In response to this post Janet Newman comments :
This message from the Council seems to be inaccurate at best and frankly deliberately misleading at worst.
The Council say “The proposal is not for dogs on leads throughout the district, just the area immediately surrounding the cafe at the Aquadrome” but Question 3 specifically talks about “other places” and question 4 even asks for suggestions!!!
My view and a real danger is they will put this in other places if they get enough support or someone suggests somewhere else and they like the sound of it eg. Chorleywood Common!!
They say the grazed land is just the sheep in CW House then why was I told specifically it related to the cows on Chorleywood Common? I was even told that there has been a lot of opposition to this from local residents? Are they being straight with us?
Defra says 6 but local authorities can restrict “This is to enable us to tackle irresponsible dog owners only” Then leave alone responsible professional dog walkers!!! Also surely local authorities still have to show some evidence that justifies a change from Defra guidelines? And the new Act says what we are doing must be “unreasonable”.
Further I wrote to the Council some time ago and asked this question:
” the questionnaire says public place and is not specific as to where orders are being considered or is it every open public space ie even footpaths”
Their response was as follows:
” Yes it means every park and open space in the district. It was intended to mean just parks etc. but they may want to include pavements and footpaths after they see the consultation results and residents comments”
Again this means if enough people suggest a place or in fact if only one person suggests it they can decide they like the idea and do it , giving us no warning of it at all!!! Qu’s 3-4, 5,6 and 7 apply.
District Councillor Sue Stibbs is keen to put people’s minds at rest. She adds…
“People seem to have interpreted the consultation in all sorts of different ways. The TRDC website explains TRDC`s proposals, and in particular that there is no intention that most of us ordinary, responsible dog owners will be expected to put our dogs on leads in circumstances where using common sense we would not does so anyway. The intention is that if a Ranger or the Dog Warden sees a dog causing a nuisance by, for example, worrying a horse and rider, attacking another dog, jumping up at another walker who is clearly not happy about it (whether the owner claims he is just being friendly or not) the owner can be asked to put the dog on a lead. Otherwise, if the dog is not causing a problem it and its owner can continue as usual. People should complete the survey so that TRDC has as wide a range of responses as possible.”
Details of the survey and more comments here:
Photo © Mr Bones
3 Comments