Question from John Flynn
On the Gedling Borough Council website, I saw that in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for Rail Services at Sections 4.6 and 4.7, it stated that there were 4 rail stations in Gedling Borough and these were at Burton Joyce, Carlton, Hucknall and Newstead. There are 4 rail stations in Gedling Borough, but the list does not name all 4 stations in Gedling Borough. The station at Netherfield, although an operational train station, appears to have been omitted, and the station at Hucknall is outside Gedling in Sutton-in-Ashfield.
I am worried that this failure to recognise Netherfield train station could affect the accuracy and validity of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Certainly, the station at Netherfield is much neglected with very few trains actually stopping there. This is similar to the situation at Burton Joyce train station where a number of trains pass through, but few trains actually stop there. Is it possible to give some reassurance that Netherfield station has not been completely forgotten in the Infrastructure Plan, and, given the projected housing developments in the area around Burton Joyce, Stoke Bardolph, and Carlton, is there any plan to improve services and facilities at Netherfield and Burton Joyce stations?
Question from Sebastian Soar
I would like to know how many people were fined in Gedling Borough in the last year for failing to clear up after their dogs. I would like to know how often the councils 'mobile surveillance units' (reference to dog fouling posters in Gedling) have been deployed and how many people they caught in the last year. Does the council regard the answers to these questions to a be a success? And what other measures is the council doing to tackle this issue for local residents?
Minutes:
Question from John Flynn.
Mr Flynn did not attend and therefore the question was not dealt with.
Question from Sebastian Soar.
I would like to know how many people were fined in Gedling Borough in the last year for failing to clear up after their dogs. I would like to know how often the councils 'mobile surveillance units' (reference to dog fouling posters in Gedling) have been deployed and how many people they caught in the last year. Does the council regard the answers to these questions to a be a success? And what other measures is the council doing to tackle this issue for local residents?
Response from Councillor David Ellis
It's important to be clear from the outset when tackling dog fouling that it is the owner's responsibility to clear up after their dogs. Most dog owners in Gedling are responsible and do clear up. I would applaud those who act responsibly.
However, we all know that there are some irresponsible owners who do not ‘pick up’ and allow their dogs to damage the environment for others. Dog fouling is not just unpleasant it can be dangerous.
The first approach we take is prevention. Our aim is to encourage owners to take responsibility and clean up after their dogs. The Communications Team at the Council uses a variety of media to get the message across - you may have seen the messages on the side of refuse freighters. The neighbourhood wardens engage directly with dog owners both on a casual basis and at planned events such as Arnold Carnival. These prevention approaches are all designed to reduce dog fouling.
We have also made it easier for owners to dispose of poo bags by introducing dual purpose waste bins across the whole borough area.
Where there are complaints of dog fouling in an area, we work with dog owners to make them aware of the offence and encourage reporting in order to identify those responsible. As appropriate we distribute leaflets to local residents, use banners (especially outside schools and parks), or signs on lampposts, and signs painted on footpaths. We find that this sort of reminder does work and reduces the problem.
The Council’s second approach, on which the question focuses, is enforcement.
Our Warden Service takes the lead on this. They are all well trained on gathering and using evidence for enforcement.
The operational tactics they can deploy are varied, ranging from overt patrols in uniform through to more covert ‘plain clothed’ approaches depending on the time of day and the location where dog fouling is happening. Last year the wardens undertook 15 of these operations, the majority of which were carried out very early in the morning when dog walkers are likely to be out.
Over the last year, 5 people were issued with fixed penalty notices for failing to clear up after their dogs. The owners admitted their guilt, accepted the notice and paid their fine of £50.
The council would not undertake any form of ‘directed surveillance’ as defined in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) since the offence of dog fouling does not fall within the seriousness categories.
In the context of an authorised RIPA operation the council does not have nor has ever used ‘mobile surveillance units’.
The Council recognises that dog fouling is still an issue that local residents wish us to tackle. We do feel that we have been successful in reducing the number of dog fouling incidents across the Borough but recognise that this is no reason to be complacent. There are areas where dog fouling still occurs repeatedly, and this is where we will continue to invest time and operational activity.