Agenda and draft minutes

This meeting will be filmed for live and / or subsequent broadcast on the Council’s website.  The whole of the meeting will be filmed, except where there are confidential or exempt items, and the footage will be on the website for 12 months.  A copy of it will also be retained in accordance with the Council’s data retention policy.

If you attend and make a representation to the meeting, you will be deemed to have consented to being filmed.  When admitted to the Council Chamber you are also consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for livestreaming and / or training purposes.  If you do not wish to have your image captured, please contact Democratic Services prior to attending the meeting.

If there are any technical difficulties with the livestreaming, the meeting will still proceed.

The Committee noted the meeting was being livestreamed.

The Committee noted the evacuation and housekeeping procedures.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the last meeting held on 15 June 2026

AGREED the minutes of the meeting held on 15 June be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received a presentation from Cleveland Police regarding their roles and responsibilities for dangerous dogs, animals of suspects arrested, and how they worked with the Council. Key information included:

• The two main piece of legislation that the Police were responsible for investigating were Section 1 and Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
  • Section 1 regarded prohibited types of dogs (banned breeds) which were XL Bullies, Pitbull Terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Brazilian Mastiff.
  • Section 3 regarded dangerously out of control dogs, which could be any type of powerful dog that could or had caused injuries e.g. German Shepherd or Rottweilers. 
• A person would be committing two offences if they owned a prohibited dog, without an exemption, which then attacked another person.
• The Police would only investigate an Animal Welfare offence under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 if there was an immediate risk, criminality or safeguarding issue.
• Cleveland Police were increasingly using the civil powers given under the Dogs Act 1871, which included control orders to be put in place, such as the dog must be on a lead and muzzled and be kept secure gardens. It also gave the power to request destruction from the court and to apply for disqualification of dog ownership. Under the legislation, evidence for cases where the victim withdraws consent or support for prosecution could still be presented to the civil court to attempt to get an outcome that protected the public.
• The data required to be recorded by the Home Office only included Aggravated Section 3 offences, which were offences where injuries had occurred. There had been a significant increase in 2025/26 of these cases in Cleveland Police area, and these were due to both an improvement to internal recording procedures and a year-on-year increase in the dog population.
• Due to the number of kennels available, the Police could not seize every dog involved in an offence and therefore used a triage tool to assess the risk and make a decision on whether it needed to be seized. This included factors such as the level of injury caused, whether it was a repeat offence, if children lived at the address with the suspect dog, and whether there were other vulnerabilities. Public Safety was the main consideration as well as consideration of the dog’s welfare and the costs involved.
• The Police also investigated cases and reports of dogs out of control which did not result in injury, dealing with reports of Section 1 prohibited types which included taking responsibility from local authorities for handed in or stray prohibited dogs that needed to be processed through the court, and low-level complaints. There was cross over between Police and local authorities’ responsibilities regarding dog-on-dog, neighbourhood disputes and anti-social behaviour and they would work together to make decisions on which organisation would lead on the case or whether it would be a jointly led.
• Out of court resolutions for dog offences were used alongside court or civil outcomes.
• Disqualification orders were being sought  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/24/26

Consideration was given to assessments of progress on the implementation of the recommendations from the Committee’s previously completed review of Domestic Waste Collection, Kerbside Recycling, and Green Waste. This was the fourth update, and two recommendations were assessed as fully achieved while one, regarding the communications and community engagement plan, remained on track due to engagement continuing until October 2026.

The Committee received a presentation as part of the update which outlined the following information:

• In the first month of the change to collections, April 2026, there was a reduction of approximately 1,800 tonnes (35%) of general waste collected from the kerbside, an increase from approximately 700 tonnes to over 1,000 tonnes of dry recycling collected, and 500 tonnes of food waste collected (55% increase of overall recycling tonnage).
• The amount collected exceeded the expected level of participation in recycling and food waste collection, which was 45-50% participation. Rounds were modelled on 65% participation level however the first few weeks saw 80% participation therefore there were some challenges and additional vehicles were needed.
• There had been issues with residents leaving out large amounts of bulky cardboard which could not be collected at the kerbside, and there was a need to highlight to residents that these should be either flattened and placed in the white sacks if they could be or taken to the recycling centre. The crews would collect multiple white bags of cardboard from the kerbside.
• The in-cab system tracked where vehicles were in real time, which helped to manage rounds and send crews to rounds which needed additional support. It also gave live information on participation levels and if there had been contamination issues.
• There had been an extensive communications and engagement plan using a range of channels, and engagement would continue until October 2026. The team had found that when speaking to residents who were nervous about the change, once they started to recycle they realised the system was ok.
• Green Waste subscriptions had also exceeded expectation, with 25% of households signed up and regular requests for new bins.

It was questioned whether green waste would be collected if it was put out in bags and officers informed that due to the new vehicles collecting the green waste having bin lifts, the crew were unable to collect green waste bags. The Committee requested further information regarding the projected number for year 2 green waste bins.

The bags for food waste were raised, with members commenting that they easily split, and officers informed that these had been bought in bulk, however would review the type of bags when purchasing again. 

The Committee discussed the perception on social media of increased rats associated with the food waste collection and increased fires due to moving to fortnightly general waste collection. It was noted that there had been no increase in the reports of either to the Waste team, Environmental Health or Cleveland Fire Brigade since the change in collections. The Committee also discussed complaints regarding bins not being collected due  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/25/26

Consideration was given to the work programme.

Two dates had been identified for the site visits to two kennels as part of the Scrutiny Review of Animal Welfare, Kennelling, and Protection of Pets. The Committee agreed on 14^th August 2026.

AGREED that site visits would be arranged and the work programme be noted.