Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – REGULATORY

The purpose of this report is to provide the key information to enable North Herts Council (the Council) to adopt a Stray Dogs Policy to allow the Council to fulfil its statutory duties in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act, 1990 (the Act), in a consistent, appropriate and fair manner.

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:

(1) Adopted the Policy as presented.

(2) Noted the following, in considering this policy:

(a) The Policy, at point 1.2, states the accepted definition of a Stray Dog, which the Act does not provide.

(b) The Act requires the appointment of a Responsible Officer for the purpose of discharging these duties and the Policy, at point 1.3 accommodates this.

(c) The Policy sets out in section 2, the conditions whereupon a stray dog will and will not be collected or seized, as this is not fully defined in the Act.

(d) The Policy also sets out at point 2.4 how the Council will manage stray dogs which are or are believed to be a Prohibited Breed, as defined under the Dangerous Dogs Act, 1991.

(e) The Policy, in section 4, states the legal requirement under the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations, 2015, that all qualifying dogs be microchipped and how this will be accommodated.

(f) The Act requires the Council to ensure the health and welfare of any collected stray dog during the 7-day retention period. The Policy states how the Council will accommodate this requirement, including the scope and limitations of this obligation at points 5.2 and 5.3.

(g) The Policy, in section 6 states the conditions required for returning the collected stray dog to the owner, including at point 6.3 the requirement for all accrued costs to be paid in full with no option of any instalments or discount (except that offered when micro-chipping unchipped stray dogs).

(h) The Policy states, in section 7, states how the Council will dispose of the stray dog either at the end of the 7-day retention period or before in necessary for humane reasons. Part 7.5 outlines how dangerous dogs will controlled and should be considered in conjunction with point d, above.

(i) The Policy, at section 9 seeks to delegate future amendments of this Policy to the Director – Regulatory in consultation with the Executive Member for Regulatory in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Constitution.

REASON FOR DECISIONS: To enable the Council to clearly state how it intends to meet its obligations under the Act, whilst putting in place limitations against the unreasonable use of public funds and to protect the Responsible Officer against undue criticism or challenges which could in turn risk the perception and reputation of the Council.

Audio recording – 25 minutes 57 seconds

Councillor Mick Debenham, as Executive Member for Regulatory, presented the report entitled ‘North Herts Council Stray Dogs Policy’ and advised that:

· The purpose of this report was to provide key information to enable North Herts Council to adopt a Stray Dogs Policy in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act of 1990.

· This Act required the Council to have a suitable policy to collect stray dogs and to hold them for a statutory 7-day period.

· If the dog was not collected by the end of this period, the dog would be passed to the owners of a boarding kennel and for them to seek to re-home the dog if possible.

· The draft Stray Dogs Policy could be found at the end of the report.

· Cabinet were being asked to adopt the policy and to note the recommendations.

Following a question from Councillor Daniel Allen, the Environmental Health Manager advised that:

· The limit of the £300 which had been deemed a reasonable amount to accommodate treatment for illness or injury to a seized dog and had also been comparable to the local fee for a Veterinary Surgeon to euthanise a dog, as details in paragraph 5.2.1 of the policy, had been set to limit potential excess use of public money.

· The Council was aware that any treatment decided necessary by the Veterinary Surgeon during the 7-day holding period could cost more than this amount and the health and welfare of the dog would always be considered.

· This policy would be periodically reviewed by the Council, and this amount could always be altered as necessary.

Following a question from Councillor Daniel Allen, Councillor Val Bryant highlighted that there was a delegation to the Executive Member and Director to make future amendments to the policy, and therefore the exact amount provided for treatment could be reviewed at a later stage.

Councillor Mick Debenham proposed and Councillor Tamsin Thomas seconded and, following a vote, it was: