Issue - decisions

The Committee received a report from the Team Manager (Commercial & Licensing).

 

The report advised Cambridge City Council has powers granted under the legislation and secondary legislation listed below to regulate a variety of animal related businesses, as well as the keeping of specified dangerous animals by individuals.

 

The type of licences that the Council is able to issue are:   

·       Animal boarding establishment licences.

·       Dog breeding establishment licences.

·       Pet shop licences.

·       Riding establishment licences.

·       Zoo licences.*

·       Dangerous wild animal licences.*

 

* Zoo licences and Dangerous wild animal licences were not affected by the new regulations coming into effect on 1 October 2018.

 

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 allowed the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to pass regulations that could repeal or amend any of the primary Licensing Acts or create new forms of licences.

 

In April 2018 DEFRA exercised this power and the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 (“2018 Regulations”) were passed by Government.  This new law would take effect on 1st October 2018.

 

The Team Manager (Commercial & Licensing) amended a typographical error in section 3.9 of the officer’s report and section 8.1 of the policy. ‘Magistrates court’ should read ‘first tier tribunal’.

 

Councillor Gillespie joined in the discussion of this item with the Chair’s permission, but did not vote, as he was not a Committee Member.

 

Councillor Gillespie’s representation covered the following issues:

       i.          The new powers should have a positive impact and gave the council an opportunity to use them to ensure animal welfare.

     ii.          Signposted RSPCA responses to the national consultation. Suggested these needed further consideration by Cambridge City Council:

a.    Reporting of issues.

b.    Training officers in the use of legislation so they could undertake enforcement action.

c.    Involving others in the monitoring of animal welfare such as vets or dog trainers.

   iii.          Requested some non-statutory guidance be written to help support owners of animals not covered by the legislation such as pet birds.

   iv.          Took issue with the levels of supervision proposed under the “star scheme”.

    v.          Requested an appropriate hotline and webpage be set up where people could report animal well fare issues. Suggested that comments from vets should be captured in a way that could be used as evidence in animal welfare cases.

 

Councillors Gehring and Gillespie made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Suggested there should be a local consultation on policy changes.

     ii.          Councillor Gillespie specifically welcomed consultation on:

a.    Silent fireworks.

b.    Banning fur trading on the market.

c.    Animal welfare.

 

Councillor Moore, speaking as Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre, said:

       i.          The City Council’s policy was a response to the new national policy. It would only affect 8 City Council Licensees so consultation was of limited value. Licence conditions were set out Iegislation so could not be amended by local views.

     ii.          Officers were looking at how star ratings could be displayed. Possibly in a similar way to hygiene ratings for cafes/restaurants.

   iii.          Offered to liaise with Councillor Gillespie after the meeting about fur trading on the market and animal welfare in general.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Team Manager (Commercial & Licensing) said the following:

       i.          The City Council had not undertaken any consultation on policy changes. This had been undertaken at a national level.

     ii.          The policy had been drawn up to simplify/consolidate a lot of complicated background documents. There was very limited local discretion on options that could be varied.

   iii.          Animal boarding conditions were set out in legislation. The Council had no discretion to amend these.

   iv.          There were some mechanisms for reporting animal welfare issues on the City Council’s website. There was no hotline at present due to lack of officer resources.

    v.          The City Council had 3 years to implement the new officer training requirements and officers would follow up how to work in conjunction with neighbouring councils.

 

Councillor Gehring suggested neighbouring authorities who had similar policies could share a welfare hotline.

 

   vi.          The City Council was not responsible for the welfare of laboratory animals.

 

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to:

       i.          Approve the Animal Welfare Licensing Policy (Appendix A) to take effect from 1^st October 2018. To include amendment to section 8.1 of the policy: ‘Magistrates court’ should read ‘first tier tribunal’.

     ii.          Approve and adopt the proposed fee structure (Appendix B) to take effect from 1^st October 2018.

   iii.          Delegate any decisions in relation to Animal Welfare to Officers.