Agenda item

Report ES16001

The report on the Stray and Abandoned Dog Service was presented by the Head of Environmental Protection.

A number of recommendations to the service had been made following a recent Audit report that had been presented to the Audit Sub Committee. This report summarised two of these recommendations relating to kennelling/ re-homing arrangements and the management action being taken. It also made recommendations to Members regarding policies for dealing with dogs confirmed as being a ‘banned breed’ or deemed unsuitable for re-homing and those that were fit for re-homing but had exceeded the statutory timescale for Local Authority care.

The Committee heard that the Council had statutory obligations to provide a stray and abandoned dog service to comply with the duties prescribed under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act–Section 68. LBB used SDK Environmental Ltd to collect stray dogs, and the dogs would then be kennelled with Lodge Kennels.

It was previously the case that advance block bookings were made with the kennel to ensure vacant kennel space. This practice would now cease, and kennels would be booked on a pay as you go basis as required.

The previous Audit report had also recommended that the arrangements for re-homing stray dogs be reviewed and formalised. There were two re-homing scenarios to be considered:

a)  A banned breed or a dog unsuitable for re-homing

b)  A healthy dog that could be re-homed, but that had exceeded the statutory timescale for local authority care

The current practice was that dogs that were either a banned breed or unsuitable for re-homing were humanely destroyed. The cost of euthanasia, transportation and disposal was currently £100 per dog. The report recommended that LBB continue with this practice, and that it be formally adopted as a policy.

The Committee considered the current LBB practice concerning healthy dogs (suitable for re-homing) that had exceeded the statutory timescale for Local Authority Care. The current practice was to continue to kennel and re-home these dogs even though LBB had no statutory obligation to do so. The alternate option was to euthanize the dogs at day eight, after the seven day statutory duty had expired. The Committee were pleased to hear that a new arrangement was being negotiated with Battersea Dogs and Cats Home (BDCH) whereby healthy dogs that could be re-homed could be placed with them for a cost of £40.00 per dog. Contingency plans were in place to cover any instances when Battersea Dogs and Cats Home would not be able to take a dog.

The Chairman asked why LBB had to kennel a banned breed for 7 days if it was as going to be destroyed anyway. Mr McGowan answered that “banned breeds” could still be owned. If a member of the public produced the appropriate documentation, they could still claim the dog. Cllr Richard Williams asked if LBB had made contact with the Dog’s Trust, as the Trust had a policy not to euthanize healthy dogs. Mr McGowan pointed out that LBB would not enter into such an agreement, as LBB would be responsible for ongoing and possibly long term kennelling costs. He noted that in future it would be a legal requirement for all dogs to be chipped, and this should make it easier to return dogs to their owners.

Cllr Chris Pierce asked how the distinction would be made between banned breeds and cross breeds. Mr McGowan responded that this could be done by the Police, BDCH, or a Government recognised vet. The Kennels would be asked on day 4 to establish if the dog was a banned breed, or a cross breed.

The Chairman asked if LBB encouraged responsible dog ownership. Mr McGowan stated that this was indeed the case, and that LBB had in the past undertaken promotions with the Dogs’ Trust, BDCH and with LBB’s contractor. More such initiatives were planned for the summer. 

Cllr Samaris Huntington Thresher asked about the SDK website. She asked if this was a website that the public were aware of, and if they could register their dog’s details on the site. She felt that it would be a good idea if the public could register with either the SDK or LBB website, input details of their dog, and get an automatic check for a match. Mr McGowan informed that the public were not able to do this at present, but this was a matter that he would discuss with the contractor. 

Mr McGowan explained that the extra cost of re-homing dogs at current rates instead of destroying them was minimal. He also explained to the Committee that destroying healthy dogs may cause reputational damage, and damage relationships with contractors.

He recommended that the Portfolio Holder formally adopt the existing euthanasia and re-homing practices at an estimated cost of £8,400 based on the previous year’s figures. These costs would be contained within the existing £169,140 budget for dog contracts.

RESOLVED

(1) that the PDS Committee note the recommendations of the audit report, and the management action being taken to implement the recommendations

(2) that the existing practice of euthanasia for dogs that were either a banned breed or unsuitable for re-homing, be adopted as a formal policy 

(3) that the existing practice of kennelling dogs deemed fit to be re-homed that have not been claimed after the statutory period be adopted as a formal policy