Glendale Police Officer Paul Shubunka introduces the new K9 Mike, a three-year old Dutch Shepherd during the Glendale Police Department's promotion and swearing in ceremony at the Glendale Police Department in Glendale, Ca., Thursday, September 12 , 2019. (photo by James Carbone)
Dog owner ordered to pay police £2,000
Paul Asquith, 40, of North Street in Darfield, appeared before Barnsley Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (April 30) after his Staffordshire Bull Terrier swung off the arm of a response officer and left him requiring hospital treatment.
On August 8, 2024, at 12.40pm two officers attended a property to carry out enquiries. As the officers approached the house, they spotted the dog in a garden.
As they knocked on the door, the dog forced the garden fence and lunged at one of the officers, grabbing his arm and suspending from it, causing puncture wounds requiring hospital treatment. As the dog remained loose, both officers had to take cover in the police vehicle.
Leading the work on dangerous dogs in South Yorkshire, Chief Inspector Emma Cheney commented: “No officer should come to work and face any type of harm or injury, and that includes from animals.
“Asquith failed to ensure that the garden fence was secure for his animal, simple things can increase everyone’s safety.
“This was an officer, on duty, who was quick enough to take action and not face life-long lasting injuries, but this could have been a different outcome if the dog had bitten a child or vulnerable person. Irresponsible ownership will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire.”
A contingent destruction order was also granted for the dog, meaning if Asquith fails to adhere to the conditions placed on him and his animal, it will be destroyed.
A ROW between Barnsley Council’s planning bosses and a couple who have been seeking permission to build an innovative new home has finally been decided on by a government body.
Applicants Chris and Sue Barton submitted their bid to transform a patch of land on Tower Street, Worsbrough, which would have resulted in a four-bedroom ‘passivhaus’ – focused on achieving extremely high energy efficiency – being created.
It was then knocked back by the council, who claimed the plan was not in keeping with the area due to the ‘incongruous materials’ proposed.
The wrangle then resulted in the couple lodging an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate, which has the power to overrule the local authority if the refusal is found unjust.
However, the government body sided with the council and also ruled out the couple’s claim for costs associated with the knocked-back application and their subsequent appeal.
A report, compiled by inspector Jack Smith, said the proposal was ‘alien’ to the area.
“The street-facing elevation would be void of expression except for a small number of windows – as such, the building would turn away from the street scene, with no front door located in a visible position when viewed from Tower Street,” it added.
“This would contrast with the predominant character of active frontages of the properties found in the immediate locality where front access doors are visible from the street scene.
