Public and businesses support plans to renew dog fouling and antisocial behaviour fines

A three-year Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) was first introduced in Rotherham town centre and Clifton Park in 2017, in a bid to crack down on public drinking, dog faeces, urinating, spitting, using language which may cause ‘alarm or distress’ and approaching people for marketing or fundraising purposes without a licence.

RMBC held a public consultation during September and October, and has now recommended that the order is extended for another year.

A majority of respondents to the consultation (140 out of 162) agreed that the clauses in the order, such as those addressing alcohol consumption, littering, and dog fouling, aligned with their priorities for improving public spaces.

Of the 109 responses specifically related to dog fouling, 33 per cent felt the existing orders have had a positive impact, while 53 per cent expressed belief that future measures could increase effectiveness. However, issues such as dogs off leads and dog waste were frequently cited, with 99 respondents mentioning incidents of dog faeces not being removed.

The consultation also revealed that dangerous dogs remain a low concern, with the police indicating that current legislation is sufficient for managing dangerous dog breeds like XL Bullies. As a result, no further restrictions on dog leads or areas prohibiting dogs are currently recommended.

In contrast, only 20 per cent of respondents felt that the current Town Centre and Clifton Park PSPO had successfully reduced antisocial behaviour. However, more than half of respondents agreed that a future order could have a positive impact. Issues like rowdy behaviour, foul language, and alcohol consumption in public spaces were the most frequently raised concerns.

A significant number of respondents (112 out of 162) raised concerns about aggressive or persistent begging in the town centre. However, South Yorkshire Police noted that proving begging meets the legal criteria of being “aggressive” or “persistent” can be challenging due to the subjective nature of such behaviour.

The draft order includes a provision to tackle behaviour that causes or is likely to cause alarm, distress, or harassment to others. If officers observe or receive complaints about persistent or aggressive begging, they would be able to take action under this clause.