Anti-social dogs and dog walkers, drone pests and campers all face a crackdown as the council looks afresh at its power to regulate public places.
Drones are to be banned from taking off and landing in all parks and public spaces across Brighton and Hove under a new public space protection order (PSPO).
The drone ban is contained in one of six PSPOs proposed by Brighton and Hove City Council which are due to go out to public consultation.
The consultation was approved by the council’s cabinet at a meeting at Hove Town Hall today (Monday 29 June).
A report to the cabinet said that there was a history of drones being an issue and unsafe around children’s playgrounds and “recreation environments”.
Labour councillor Emma Daniel, the council’s cabinet member for children, families and youth services, said: “We are having to think about how we legislate for new technology.
“Drones can be intrusive and dangerous if not flown with care.”
A ban on covering all council parks and public open spaces would be in line with Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) guidance on restrictions to flying drones, the cabinet was told.
Another new PSPO would ban “overnight recreational camping” on council land – a move that Councillor Daniel said was not “seeking to criminalise homelessness” nor was it targeting travellers.
The cabinet report cited Regency Square as an example, saying that a camper van had parked there in the summer for two years.
Councillor Daniel said: “I know people focus on encampments and we are working on encampments in the broadest sense.
“We are not in any way seeking to criminalise homelessness but you’d be amazed at how many people who do actually camp are just visiting.
“That is not right and you should go and pay for a campsite if you want to come on holiday.”
Councillor Daniel said that the public consultation would ask people about the proposed PSPOs as well as extensions to and renewals of existing PSPOs
These include renewing the ban on balloon releases, sky lanterns and the use of disposable barbecues in public spaces. An extension to this order would include lighting unauthorised fires on public land, excluding allotments.
In Blakers Park the council plans to extend its dog-free zone to include the fenced-off area and also to ban professional dog walkers.
Councillor Daniel said: “I used to take my daughter there when she was little and it’s such a small park.
“The idea that you could bring a whole bunch of dogs and walk them there when it’s surrounded by roads, I don’t think that’s a good idea.
“But in the absence of common sense, there’s a proposed new PSPO there as well which I think is very sensible.”
Labour councillor Theresa Fowler, who represents Hollingdean and Fiveways, previously presented a petition to the council calling for dogs to be banned from the fenced-off part of the Park.
The Labour leader of the council, Bella Sankey, praised Councillor Fowler’s efforts in pushing for the PSPO, saying that she was “like a dog with a bone” when it came to Blakers Park.
There are 12 separate public consultations about PSPOs on the council’s website, including one that could require dogs to be on leads in public places.
The surveys are open for five weeks and due to close on Friday 7 August.
Pathetic …. Authoritarian….. Unenforceable… Sound-bite…. knee-jerk BS
Well, they ARE enforceable, that’s the whole point of them, they enable enforcement. Pretty standard affair to have them in place, and have been around for years, this is mainly a refresh, so you can’t say it is a knee-jerk reaction to anything either.
Scope…well that is what the consultation is for.
Many of these rules are Renewals. They are currently not enforced and are likely to be unenforced going forwards. There’s no budget being put into this and just the signposting alone would cost six figures.
On walks this week, I’ve already come across two disposable barbecues and three abandoned fires. Some with broken glass littering. All illegal now all unenforced. Without a budget for signposting and enforcement, this is all just hot air
Ah, slightly different context though, isn’t it? That’s the difference being able to enforce, versus not having the resources to enforce? I agree with the point that having more resources to do the later is a challenge in this climate, but is that a reason not to have the ability to enforce in place?
What a weird thing to say. Why should people use Hove Lawns as a free campsite? And it’s clear PSPOs are both legal and enforceable.
Perfect I have a large reactive dog who I have spent 2 years trainning which she is so under control now cause she trusts me , off lead dogs are a pain there not trainned and the owners tell you they want to play as they are attacking other dogs , I think this should be all over our country all dogs on leads in public places there not dog parks there for the public then all these dog attacks will stop , drones yes owners to be fined and dogs on lead and muzzled if they are nervous or aggressive towards other dogs , dogs are happy with 15 minutes of good play stimulation then a long walk of sniffing and being with their leader on the leash, I welcome it
I do sympathise with people who have reactive dogs, but the solution cannot be to make every other dog’s life smaller.
There are plenty of well-trained, sociable, non-reactive dogs who enjoy running, playing and politely greeting other dogs in parks without causing any problems. It is not fair to spoil that because another dog is nervous, aggressive or difficult to manage.
A dog saying hello is not “attacking”. Dogs are social animals. They often want to greet, sniff and play. If a particular dog cannot cope with that, then that dog needs careful management, training, distance, a lead and, where necessary, a muzzle. That responsibility sits with the owner of the reactive dog.
The real problem is not ordinary off-lead dogs under control. It is irresponsible owners, uncontrolled dogs and genuinely dangerous animals. Those people are also the ones most likely to ignore any new rules, so blanket bans just punish responsible owners while doing little about the real risks.
Target the nuisance. Enforce against aggression. Deal with dangerous dogs properly. But do not ban well-trained dogs from normal, happy park life because some owners cannot manage theirs.
To me, having a dog off-lead is a risk that can be easily mitigated. They are animals, and unfortunately, that does make them unpredictable. Although, having enclosed spaces where dogs could specifically be off-lead might be a better middle ground? And there are items like lunge lines too to give them as much freedom as possible, whilst still having physical control.
Not allowing dogs off lead is a contravention of animal welfare laws. Imagine a whole life where you couldn’t roam and explore. Yes, this needs to be done considerately but that is possible for the vast majority with the correct training.
Long lines as you describe are not safe. They cause many injuries each year to people and dogs. Dogs on a lead can be dangerous too as plenty will tell you who’ve been bitten by them
The issue is the correct training and enforcement for the minority. If we ban the majority because of the minority where would we stop? All cyclists and drivers would be removed. Children would never be allowed out. No one be allowed to drink for those out of control drunks
Humans are animals too and many are also dangerous and unpredictable, especially some of the new arrivals to the country! Maybe we need enclosed spaces for them or at least have them on leashes to keep the public safe! If someone is attacked by one of them, then the attacker should be put to sleep!
Why do we so easily separate ourselves from other animals just from some sort of perceived intelligence?
I think stopping dogs off leads in pubs might be a good starting point.
There are rules and regulations that apply to drones in the UK, so why do we need council no-fly zones? – https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/open-category/getting-started-with-drones-and-model-aircraft/registering-to-fly-drones-and-model-aircraft/#
I hope the council’s drone ban will match the CAA rules in that they mainly don’t apply to smaller ones under 250g.
I was thinking this too. Mine is a micro. Drones are unsafe if you drive them unsafely. Do they need to be banned so broadly?
Depends, are you a responsible person?
If so you’re a great target to slap with a fine.
If you look like your carrying a knife then they will leave you well alone.
Consistency, huh? It’s a good point.
I occasionally use a drone for work. Every person or organisation owning/being responsible for a drone must have an operator’s ID. The drone pilot must have a flying ID which requires them to pass an on-line test. (These rules apply to drones weighing over 100 grams).
If someone is flying a drone in a dangerous manner or in a way that is a causing an unreasonable nuisance, take issue with them via the CAA regulations. A blanket ban on taking off in all public spaces is draconian and complete overkill. How are people supposed to use a drone for a reasonable purpose which requires take off in a public space with a ban in place? The proposed approach is far too authoritarian.
Benjamin, there you are again—under yet another article, appointing yourself the comments section’s resident expert. Whether it’s academies, councillors’ pay, drones or devolution, you always arrive with the same smug certainty, as if everyone has been waiting for your verdict.
The reality is much less impressive. You’re an anonymous commenter with no authority, no mandate and no special insight. You don’t speak for the council, you don’t speak for the public, and you certainly don’t get to declare every criticism “ridiculous” simply because it doesn’t fit your worldview.
What’s most tiresome is the superiority. Every reply drips with the assumption that you’re the only person capable of understanding the issue while everyone else needs correcting. That’s not intelligence or nuance—it’s arrogance dressed up as reason.
You’ve become so predictable that people can guess what you’ll write before you’ve typed it: defend the establishment, dismiss concerns, lecture everyone else, then congratulate yourself for being “pragmatic”. It’s less a contribution to debate and more a performance.
If your arguments were as strong as you think they are, you wouldn’t need the constant air of condescension. All you’ve really achieved is becoming the anonymous commenter everyone expects to pop up under every story telling everyone else why they’re wrong. That’s not influence—it’s a habit.
Spamming more AI slop? I thought we got past this. The constant changing of alias is something we need to work on still though. Anyway, I assumed you would be highly focused on the Ockenden Review at the moment – very damning read. Are you struggling at the moment? Do make sure you’re looking after yourself.
It says a drone ban. Is that to include you, Benjamin?
Haha! Points for creativity on that one! 😂