Summary: Mrs X complains about inadequate signage about dog walking restrictions on beaches and about access to the dog friendly beaches. The decision on beach access for dogs was made in 2013 and is now under review. The best way for Mrs X to make her points and get changes for dog walkers is to participate in the current consultation process on beach access.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about inadequate signage showing dog walking restrictions on beaches in St Ives are unclear. She also says access to the dog friendly beaches are unsafe and so makes the beaches inaccessible.
2. Mrs X says the access problems mean she is put at risk when using them to walk her dog.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I am only considering issues around signage and beach accessibility. I explain at para 21 below why I am not considering other issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council introduced a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) several years ago. This restricts taking dogs onto some beaches in Cornwall. The restrictions vary from beach to beach. In St Ives the restrictions start each year after Easter and last until the end of September. On some beaches in St Ives there is a total ban on dogs for these months. On other beaches, the restrictions apply to certain times in the day. There are also some beaches with no restrictions at all.

The current PSPO restrictions ended on 30 September 2019. Mrs X and other dog owners are now able to take their dogs on all beaches in St Ives until a new PSPO is issued. The Council is currently conducting a consultation on dog restrictions in Cornwall. The consultation runs until 19 November 2019.

9. Mrs X has strong views about the restrictions and feels they are unreasonable. It is open to Mrs X to submit her views, and any supporting evidence she has about beach usage, as part of this consultation.
10. Mrs X says there is inadequate signage showing the dog restrictions for the harbour beach. She says she is aware of many dog owners who have been issued with fines because they used this beach at the wrong time. Mrs X has not provided any information to show she has been fined.
11. The Council has provided a plan showing where signs about dog restrictions on the beaches are located. This shows there are over ten signs within the St Ives harbour area. There is also a sign on the slipway which says the slipway cannot be used by dog walkers to access one of the dog friendly beaches.
12. Mrs X also raises the issue of the dog friendly beach being inaccessible. The Council says Pednolva beach only has a small area of sand which is visible at low tide. It is mostly covered with a mix of large and small boulders and stones.
13. The Council has provided pictures which show the access to the beach. There are three sets of steps which lead directly onto boulders and stones at the rear of the beach. The Council acknowledges the condition of the steps is variable because they are tidally washed and so have eroded over time. It is possible to access Pednolva via the harbour beach at low tide but the PSPO restricts dog walkers on that beach between 8 am and 7 pm in the summer season.
14. The Council says the most commonly used access is beside the lifeboat station. It says this access is less steep but you would still be required to walk across stones. It says the boulders and stones shift with the tide action and so any physical intervention to move stones to improve the access would not be permanent. It says it also has to take account of coastal protection and so cannot remove boulders which could increase the flood risk to properties at the rear of the beach.

Analysis

15. Mrs X is a dog walker and wants to walk her dog on the beach. She feels the current PSPO is unreasonable and places unnecessary restrictions on dog walkers’ access to beaches.
16. The PSPO was introduced many years ago and so I have not considered a complaint about the process to make that order. I also cannot consider any complaints about the restrictions or which beaches were designated for use by dog owners. A new order will be implemented next year and the consultation process is currently open. Mrs X can contribute to that consultation and it seems to me that is the best way for her to make her views known.
17. The current PSPO restrictions ended on 30 September and Mrs X now has open access to all beaches until a new order in implemented.
18. I appreciate Mrs X has been involved in a campaign on the issue of dog access to beaches and says she is raising this issue on behalf of all dog owning residents. However, Mrs X is not an official representative of any authorised group so I have only considered how she is directly affected by any Council actions. I am satisfied there is sufficient signage about the beach restrictions. The Council’s website also provides detailed information. While Mrs X has provided anecdotal evidence that people have been fined and she considers this is due to insufficient signage, there is nothing to suggest she has personally been fined. It seems to me that Mrs X is fully aware of the restrictions and so I am not persuaded that even if there is a lack of signage, that she has been personally affected.
19. Mrs X also complains about the access problems to the dog friendly beach. She says the beaches designated for use by dogs without any restrictions have access issues. She feels this is unfair and wants changes to be made. I have explained why I cannot look at the decision made in 2013 about what restrictions apply to which beaches. As explained previously, the best way for Mrs X to now influence this, is to participate in the current consultation about the future PSPO. There is no basis for me to make any recommendations into the access issues.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I intend to complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

21. Mrs X complained the process used to consider the PSPO was flawed as it did not carry out an equality impact assessment and failed to meet the needs of an older population and those with disabilities. As the PSPO process was carried out many years ago, I have not considered this. The Ombudsman only considers complaints about matters brought to him within 12 months of the person becoming aware of the issue. Mrs X did not raise the issue of how the PSPO was made within 12 months of that action and has not presented any evidence to suggest I should exercise discretion and now consider a late complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman