Agenda item

Decision:

(1)    That the variation of the existing town centre Public Spaces Protection Order, as set in Appendices 1 and 2 to the report submitted to the Executive, including the extension of geographical area and variation in behaviours, be approved.

(2)    That the proposed actions set out in Appendix 3 to the report, which aimed to address the outstanding actions raised during the review of the Public Spaces Protection Order, be approved.

Reasons:

(1)   The Council had demonstrated that it had undertaken the statutory process to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that:

·       activities had taken place that had a detrimental effect on the quality of life for those in the localities identified, or it was likely that activities would take place and that they would have a detrimental effect, and

·       the effect or likely effect of those activities:

o   was, or was likely to be, persistent or continuing in nature,

o   was, or was likely to be, unreasonable, and

o   justified the restrictions being imposed.

(2)   The PSPO review highlighted behaviours that were not appropriate for inclusion in a PSPO and would be better addressed with other tools or existing powers.

(3)   The PSPO review presented evidence of a lack of awareness of the existing PSPO and an absence of a robust enforcement policy to respond appropriately to breaches.

Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:

None

Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:

None.

Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) were introduced through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and were part of a range of measures available to councils to address anti-social behaviour. PSPOs focused on identified problem behaviour in a specific location and the impact of that behaviour on communities and individuals. The Council had two PSPOs in place, one was a borough wide PSPO relating to dog fouling and the other a town centre PSPO relating to alcohol consumption. The council was required to review any PSPO at least every three years at which point they may be removed, amended, or extended by up to a further three years if there was a need for such a response to the problem.

The Executive considered a report relating to the town centre PSPO which set out the evidence and arguments to make a number of variations to the Order.  There was a recommendation to include additional behaviours including rowdy and inconsiderate behaviour and the use of ‘legal high’ substances. In addition the scope of the Order would be expanded to include The Mount, Josephs Road and Stoke Park. Enforcement would be educational and mainly targeted at repeat offenders.

Executive and ward councillors welcomed the recommendations, especially the geographical extension. It was noted that the PSPO did not include the problem of Parkour or ‘free running’ that was currently an issue for the town centre. This was resulting in damage to town centre roofs surrounding the Guildhall, especially in Market Street. The Leader of the Council would raise the matter with officers.

Officers and the members of the Joint Action Group (JAG) were commended for the report.

The Executive

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the variation of the existing town centre Public Spaces Protection Order, as set in Appendices 1 and 2 to the report submitted to the Executive, including the extension of geographical area and variation in behaviours, be approved.

(2)    That the proposed actions set out in Appendix 3 to the report, which aimed to address the outstanding actions raised during the review of the Public Spaces Protection Order, be approved.

Reasons:

(1)   The Council had demonstrated that it had undertaken the statutory process to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that:

·       activities had taken place that had a detrimental effect on the quality of life for those in the localities identified, or it was likely that activities would take place and that they would have a detrimental effect, and

·       the effect or likely effect of those activities:

o   was, or was likely to be, persistent or continuing in nature,

o   was, or was likely to be, unreasonable, and

o   justified the restrictions being imposed.

(2)   The PSPO review highlighted behaviours that were not appropriate for inclusion in a PSPO and would be better addressed with other tools or existing powers.

(3)   The PSPO review presented evidence of a lack of awareness of the existing PSPO and an absence of a robust enforcement policy to respond appropriately to breaches.