Meeting documents

Venue: The Olympic Room, Aylesbury Vale District Council, The Gateway, Gatehouse Road, Aylesbury, HP19 8FF

Contact: Alice Fisher; Email: afisher@aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk; 

Items
No. Item

1.

Temporary Changes to Membership

Any changes will be reported at the meeting.

 

Minutes:

There were none.

2.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 63 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2016 attached as an Appendix.

Minutes:

RESOLVED –

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 29 February 2016 be approved as a correct record.

3.

Introduction of a Public Space Protection Order for Aylesbury Town Centre pdf icon PDF 154 KB

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

 

Contact Officer: Peter Seal 01296 585083

Minutes:

At the Licensing Committee held on 29 February 2016 Members considered the first draft of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for Aylesbury Town Centre. As noted at the time, PSPOs were introduced in October 2014 via the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act to replace Designated Public Place Orders.

 

The first draft of the Aylesbury Town Centre PSPO sought to address 6 behaviours that could have a detrimental effect the quality of life of those in the town centre and were considered persistent and continuing. These were:-

 

·         Public consumption of alcohol or having an open container of alcohol;

·         Public urination or defecation;

·         Aggressive or intimidating begging;

·         Aggressive or intimidating behaviour;

·         Control of dogs; and

·         The unauthorised parking of motor vehicles on Kingsbury and Market Square.

Following the meeting in February a consultation process had been conducted including consultation with the Thames Valley Police Area Commander, AVDC Cabinet Members and Ward Members, Bucks County Council Highways, Aylesbury Town Council, Aylesbury Old Town Residents Association and the Aylesbury Hackney Carriage Association. In addition notices were prepared for the press and various websites as outlined in the officer’s report.

 

Attached as an appendix to the report was a summary of the responses received, all supporting the draft PSPO. Also attached as an appendix was the response from the Local Police Area Commander.

 

A number of comments received during the consultation needed further consideration. Both the police and another consultee pointed out the need to ensure that the PSPO would not be used inappropriately against people who, for example, found themselves homeless.

 

The Area Commander recommended the adoption of a broader prevention strategy which would have to be agreed between the police and local authorities. Guidance in the Act suggested that issues are resolved at the lowest level of intervention as possible, such as offering advice and perhaps referral to a support agency.

 

Formal action under the PSPO was expected to be very infrequent.

 

A number of other local authorities had been criticised by the National Council for Civil Liberties and similar groups, particularly those councils that had targeted rough sleepers and the homeless.

 

As the police had been able to deal successively with aggressive beggars as documented in the area commander’s response, it was proposed to remove this section from the final PSPO.

 

The police had also questioned the issue of illegal parking on Kingsbury and Market Square and whether this should be addressed under normal parking enforcement rules rather than the PSPO. However, the public realms of Kingsbury and Market Square in Legal terms do not permit enforcement in the normal way. Apart from the structural damage caused to the surfaces, the illegal parking had also prevented the lawful trading for some of the businesses and town centre events. However, this part of the PSPO could be enforced by the County enforcement officers, and perhaps the District’s civic enforcement officers but not the police. A number of solutions to the problem parking were discussed by Members and it was hoped that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

Licensing Requirements for Dog Day Care Establishments pdf icon PDF 68 KB

To consider the report attached as an appendix.

 

Contact: Peter Seal 01296 585083

Minutes:

It was reported that Aylesbury Vale District Council were responsible for licensing kennels and catteries within its area under the Animal Boarding Establishment Act 1963. It was also reported that home boarding was rising in popularity, which also required licensing. Currently about 50 home boarders were licensed.

 

In the last year or so there had been enquiries from individuals proposing to set up dog day care facilities on a much larger scale in purpose built premises and such premises would require a licence under the Act. At present, neither the current standard conditions for animal boarding nor home boarding were entirely appropriate for this kind of operation.

 

In respect to the licensing requirements the Act had regard to the nature of the accommodation, including construction, size, number of occupants, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness; the availability of food, drink and bedding; the control and spread of infectious disease; protection of animals in case of fire, and various documentation requirements. Further, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 had introduced "5 freedoms" in respect to animal welfare:-

 

·         Freedom from hunger and thirst;

·         Freedom from discomfort;

·         Freedom from pain, injury and disease;

·         Freedom to behave normally; and

·         Freedom from fear and distress.

Following an enquiry and in anticipation of a business eventually setting up in the Vale, a draft set of conditions were drawn up. These had been based on other authorities licensing conditions and other sources. The draft conditions were sent to one of AVDC’s designated vets, the individual who had made the enquiry and the council’s Environmental Health team for feedback. The draft conditions were attached as an appendix to the report.

 

The council was also required to determine a fee for dog day care establishments based on the recovery of delivering the service. Based on fees for commercial boarding establishments, as agreed in 2015, it was recommended that the fee for a new application be £450 which included the vet costs, and a renewal be £110.

 

The situation regarding any new establishments would be monitored and if necessary a report would be brought back to a future Licensing Committee.

 

Members commented and sought clarification on various matters including disease control, fees to be charged, temperature controls in the premises, disposal of waste  and the different types of boarding facilities. It was confirmed the conditions attached to any licence only considered the welfare of the dogs, and other issues such as noise and location/size of premises came under separate legislation.

 

Officers also confirmed that DEFRA had been consulting on changes to all animal establishment licensing as current licensing was based on out of date legislation. DEFRA were proposing to introduce new secondary legislation under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Consequently it was felt better to wait for the outcome on this as standard conditions may be put in place for all such establishments.

 

Subject to a couple of minor changes in the conditions, it was

 

RESOLVED –

 

1.    That members noted the report;

 

2.    Agreed the standard licensing conditions as attached to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.