Picture a dog walking quietly beside its owner on Worthing Pier, without a lead. No mess, no chasing, no jumping up at strangers.

Should an enforcement officer tell the owner to clip the lead on, or issue a £100 penalty?

That is a hypothetical example, but the restriction is real. Worthing Pier is one of the places where the council requires dogs to be on leads. It puts a practical question at the heart of local enforcement: how much discretion should there be when someone breaks a rule without causing an obvious problem? Council dog-control guidance

More Radio reported on 1 September that National Enforcement Solutions officers were taking on enforcement of existing dog exclusion and lead restrictions across Adur and Worthing. Its report says the restrictions themselves were not changing. More Radio

Residents are being asked to comply with established rules, with an expanded enforcement operation behind them.

What the rules actually say

The council lists Worthing Pier, Denton Gardens, Marine Gardens and the promenade between George V Avenue and Windsor Road among the places requiring leads.

Dogs are excluded from specified places, including Highdown Gardens and enclosed children’s play areas. Seasonal beach exclusions run from 1 May to 30 September between Splash Point and Heene Road, and between the two boat-launching ramps in Goring-by-Sea. These restrictions apply to particular sections of beach, rather than the whole Worthing coastline. Council guidance and maps

Worthing’s current dog-control Public Spaces Protection Order took effect on 18 December 2025. It specifies a £100 fixed penalty notice for breaches and says non-payment may lead to prosecution. The order also includes reasonable-excuse provisions and specified assistance-dog exemptions, so individual circumstances matter. Worthing’s sealed order

A calm dog does not, by itself, remove a lead requirement. Equally, the existence of a penalty does not establish that officers issue one in every case.

The case for firmer enforcement

There is a straightforward argument for taking the rules seriously: shared spaces should be usable by people who do not want an unfamiliar dog approaching them.

A dog’s owner may know it is friendly. A parent with a small child, someone frightened of dogs, or a person worried about being knocked over cannot be expected to make the same judgement.

Waiting for an incident before acting would also defeat the preventive purpose of a lead restriction. The case for enforcement is strongest where it makes boundaries predictable: owners know what is expected, and other people know what protections apply.

There is a fairness argument within dog ownership, too. Someone who consistently follows the rules might reasonably ask why another owner should be allowed to disregard them until an officer intervenes.

If the only consequence is being asked to comply, does that encourage people to treat restrictions as optional?

The case for a warning first

The counterargument is about proportion.

Consider someone who has misunderstood a boundary, immediately puts their dog on a lead and is willing to follow the instruction. Would a recorded warning achieve the desired result?

That would recognise a difference between an initial mistake and a deliberate refusal to cooperate. It could also preserve goodwill towards officers whose work depends on public cooperation.

But a warning system would need to mean something. How would repeat breaches be identified? When would an officer move straight to a penalty? Would the same approach apply to someone who leaves dog mess behind, or enters a clearly marked children’s play area?

Those questions make “just use common sense” a less complete answer than it first appears. Discretion needs clear boundaries if residents are to trust that similar situations receive similar treatment.

Where the money goes deserves a clear explanation

The councils’ published account of their environmental-enforcement trial says the service operates at no cost to the councils, which receive 15% of fine income for environmental improvements. It also says officers are paid hourly and receive no bonuses. Those are the published trial arrangements, rather than independently verified terms of any subsequent contract. Council enforcement FAQ

That funding model makes scrutiny reasonable. Useful measures would include warnings, penalties, disputed notices and evidence of improved compliance. Residents should be able to judge whether enforcement is making public spaces better.

The number of tickets alone would not answer that question.

What should happen on the first encounter?

The sources reviewed for this article do not establish whether officers currently follow a warning-first policy for these dog-control breaches. The question here is what that policy should be.

Would you favour a recorded warning for an initial, lower-risk breach, with penalties for repetition or refusal? Or should a clearly marked restriction carry a financial consequence from the first offence?

If an owner immediately puts a calm dog on a lead when challenged on Worthing Pier, should they still face a £100 penalty? Tell us where you would draw the line, and why.