Agenda item

Councillors George Cooper and David Yarrow attended the meeting and spoke as Ward Councillors.

Concerns and suggestions from petitioners included the following:

• 86 people signed the petition
• The dog owners were depriving other residents of peace in their own home.
• Nothing had been done by the Council over the past 2 years.
• Dog walkers were intimidated by the dogs and often diverted from Fairfield Road.
• The dogs barked persistently.
• The dogs were German Shepherds.
• The dogs escaped from the site gates
• Residents had been kept up all night.
• Children had been woken up by the barking dogs.

Both Ward Councillors spoke in support of the petitioners’ request and raised the following issues:

• The number of residents in attendance at the hearing indicated the level of support to the petition.
• Had attended the lead petitioners’ property and witnessed the barking dogs.
• The dogs had previously escaped and attacked other dogs.
• The dogs were not kept under proper control.
• These dogs were not pets, they were guard dogs.
• A noise device should be left for 48 hours.

The Cabinet Member, Cllr Douglas Mills listened to the concerns and responded to the points raised.

Cllr Mills was keen to support residents suffering from nuisance.  Cllr Mills suggested that a noise abatement notice could be served on the owners of the dogs providing there was sufficient evidence to do so.  Cllr Mills informed petitioners of the importance to report the consistent barking.

Cllr Mills explained that the noise team had previously attended No. 35a Fairfield Road but the barking was at a diminished level, however, warning letters had been sent which saw a short term improvement.  Cllr Mills concluded that whilst residents had the right to own a dog he also agreed that residents had the right to enjoyment in their property.

The Cabinet Member was advised by officers that it was hard to gain evidence from the noise created by dogs.  Cllr Mills understood the frustration of residents but reiterated the importance of reporting any incident involving the dogs. 

Resolved – That the Cabinet Member:

a)     Noted the views and concerns of the petitioners.

b)     Instructed officers to continue to respond to reports of noise nuisance arising from the property, if these reports appear to indicate the presence of a statutory noise nuisance, and to take any enforcement action which may be appropriate in the circumstances.

c)     Instructed officers to prioritise this address for visits when a report is received, to maximise the opportunity to witness a statutory nuisance.

d)     Authorised officers to close the case if, after a reasonable period of investigation, there does not appear to be a statutory noise nuisance suitable for enforcement action.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Although the dogs may bark for short periods on several occasions through the day, for example when they sense dogs going past on the way to the common; this would not constitute a statutory nuisance. In response to a number of calls from residents about these dogs, officers have been carrying out both reactive and proactive visits to the area, but so far have not witnessed a statutory noise nuisance. Contact has been made with the owners of the dogs and advice has been provided.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The lead petitioner has been advised of the right to seek authorisation from the Magistrates’ Court for independent action by residents to lay information to the court seeking a Noise Abatement Order under section 82 Environmental Protection Act 1990.