Agenda item

Ross Forsyth (Principal Licensing Officer), Daniel Ferrer (Licensing Team Manager) and Stephanie Waterford (Head of Public Protection and Enforcement) were in attendance to respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification in respect of the Animal Welfare and Animal Licensing report included in the agenda pack.

Members questioned what background actions were being taken to demonstrate preparedness as an authority. In response, officers confirmed that

engagement had begun with the Resilience Forum in the London Borough of Hillingdon. The risk register was under review, including risks related to animal health and disease. Contingency plans were being examined, and officer time would be dedicated to ensure awareness of farms, smallholdings, and green spaces. Members heard that a register of poultry and animal keepers was maintained, and work was underway to access movement databases and initiate farm inspections.

Councillors asked why the gap in preparedness had only recently been identified and noted that the Borough had fewer farms than other authorities. It was explained that attendance at Chief Trading Standards Officers’ meetings kept them informed about diseases such as blue tongue and avian influenza. Outbreaks in Europe were monitored, and vaccines were being developed. Due to departmental resourcing issues, full-time dedication to this area had not been possible.

Councillors welcomed the recruitment of Kate Morris, an experienced welfare officer from the police. Ross Forsyth was praised for managing the animal welfare area single-handedly and it was hoped that there would be improved focus with the new team member in post.

The Committee referred to specific horse welfare cases and asked what the first 48 hours looked like when a concern was raised. The Principal Licensing Officer stated that serious welfare issues were assessed within 24 hours. If animals were to be taken into possession, a vet’s sign-off was required under the Animal Welfare Act. If the animal was on Council land, an abandonment notice could be served and resolved within days. If on private land, vet approval was needed before action could be taken.

Members raised concerns regarding a live court case involving animal mutilation and asked about the Council’s role in tracing how the animals had been obtained. Officers were not familiar with the specific case but confirmed close collaboration with the police and the RSPCA. Widespread issues with unlicensed breeders and ongoing investigations were acknowledged. Members heard that, with new staff, the team aimed to increase enforcement and prosecution efforts.

Councillors asked about aquatic animal protection at Little Britain Lake and Cowley, noting recent attacks and the area's conservation status. It was explained that animal welfare was not a statutory function but was undertaken voluntarily. Wildlife crimes were typically handled by the Metropolitan Police’s wildlife unit, with whom the Council had engaged previously.

In response to queries regarding fishing licences and the impact of discarded lines on wildlife, it was clarified that fishing licensing was not under the licensing team’s remit, but officers would investigate and liaise with relevant teams. It was confirmed that fishing licences had previously been managed by Green Spaces and a review of the area’s management was suggested.

The Director of Environment noted that a new Allotment and Fisheries Officer had been appointed and offered to provide a briefing note on their responsibilities.

Councillors sought further clarification regarding compliance inspections for one-year licences and whether they were announced or unannounced. It was explained that supplementary inspections for minor failings were announced due to legal limitations on entering residential properties.

In response to their requests for clarification regarding officer capacity and training, Members heard that one officer was qualified and another, Kate Morris, was currently undergoing training. It was confirmed that, once completed, the team would have two appointed officers for licensing inspections.

Members enquired what “closely monitoring” meant in respect of businesses operating without renewed licences. Officers described the process of reminder letters, follow-up contact, and routine inspection visits including door knocks.

Councillors asked about responsibilities in respect of wild animals in green spaces. In response it was stated that the licensing team responded to welfare reports, but environmental disturbance fell under other departments, likely Green Spaces.

The Committee sought clarification regarding microchipping compliance and trends. The process of issuing cautionary letters and follow-ups, with potential prosecution for non-compliance, was explained. Members heard that the Council had access to stray dog data and was monitoring trends. It was noted that the local authority was responsible for enforcing microchipping.

In response to further requests for clarification from the Committee Members, it was confirmed that no Community Protection Notices (CPNs) had been issued for barking dogs. The business in question had applied for a licence which had been refused, and they were believed to be no longer operating.

With regard to training delivery to other departments, Members were informed that officers were interested in delivering training – a successful case involving CPN enforcement and prosecution was shared with the Committee.

Members sought reassurance regarding horse welfare during heatwaves and enquired whether vet approval was needed in all cases. Officers stated that immediate measures could be taken in extreme cases, but veterinary assessment was preferred. The Council had good relationships with vets and could arrange inspections within 24 hours.

Regarding animal exhibitions at schools and public events, it was confirmed that exhibitions were covered under the same licensing regulations and were subject to financial thresholds and licensing requirements.

In response to further questions from the Committee regarding external funding opportunities and previous success in grant applications, officers confirmed engagement with DEFRA and receipt of funding. Members were advised that grants were discussed in forums, and the team was open to exploring additional sources.

Members wondered how funding opportunities were communicated and whether officers received notification of these. It was explained that funding notices were posted on the Knowledge Hub, which officers had to monitor. It was not a public website and required role-specific access.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee:

1. Noted the content of the report.