Agenda item

The EAB considered a report which provided it with the opportunity to examine the process followed in reviewing the current Guildford town centre Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) and invited it to advise and comment on the adherence to, and appropriateness of, the process followed in relation to the statutory guidance and the Council’s obligations.

The report set out the context of the Council’s existing PSPOs together with the legal framework and the statutory guidance relevant to the review of a PSPO.  The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 had introduced PSPOs as a tool for councils to address anti-social behaviour in their areas.  The legislation included statutory requirements for councils to adhere to when reviewing, developing, and implementing PSPOs.  The Local Government Association (LGA) had produced guidance for councils based on the legislation and statutory requirements.

The Council had utilised the guidance to inform its approach to reviewing the current town centre PSPO.  The report set out how the Council had approached the review and adhered to the statutory guidance and provided a summary of the consultation undertaken in the process to date and concluded by setting out the next steps to be progressed in the review.  The key risks associated with this review and the mitigations were also addressed.

The Policy Officer – Community and Events gave a supporting presentation to summarise the contents of the report and to inform the related discussion.  The presentation outlined the background to the review, legal tests, process to date, impact of Covid-19, key risks, next steps, conclusion and a recommendation seeking the EAB’s related considerations and comments.

The following points arose from related questions, comments and discussion:

1.           The geographical area covered by the current PSPO was confined to Guildford town centre, however, in the event that a new PSPO was adopted or the current one amended, the associated review would consider the area to which it would relate.  Data was currently being gathered in order to identify where problem behaviours occurred to inform the area(s) to which a new or amended PSPO would apply.

2.           Anti-social behaviour by youths as a result of excess alcohol consumption was regularly experienced at Tongham Recreation Ground and other parts of the Borough.  Although Tongham Parish Council had discussed the matter with the police, minimal progress had been achieved to date and the advice received had been to continue reporting such incidents to the police, which was the case.  This type of anti-social behaviour and possible related crime appeared to occur in generational cycles.  It was confirmed that parish councils had been consulted in respect of the current review of the PSPO, in accordance with the statutory requirement.  There was awareness of these issues around the Ash and Tongham areas and the Joint Action Group (JAG) was the appropriate channel for reporting incidents of this nature.  The JAG would consider what anti-social behaviour tools were available to tackle the problems in the most appropriate manner.  PSPOs had not been suggested by any partners recently as the best tool to tackle related issues.  Dispersal Orders were an alternative to PSPOs and although they could be effective in the area where they were applied, they could result in anti-social behaviour being displaced to another location.

3.           Fly tipping was raised as an anti-social behaviour issue that was brought to ward councillors’ attention on a regular basis.

4.           As the enforcement policy relating to the current PSPO had not been reviewed in recent years, it required updating to meet current needs and legal stipulations.  However, some remedial action had been taken in 2020 to extend it to ensure that there was sufficient enforcement coverage leading to recognition that a full review was necessary.  The enforcement policy regarding any revised or new PSPO would need to include a communications strategy and reflect joint partnership working involving the Safer Guildford Partnership (SGP) and JAG to ensure that every aspect of enforcement was implemented.  The success of engagement and joint working with partners was reflected in Guildford’s Purple Flag status.

5.           In terms of communicating and working with town centre alcohol providers, this was undertaken through Experience Guildford (the local Business Improvement District), Pub Watch and other partners forming the SGP together with operational groups such as the JAG.  However, the extent to which this liaison influenced alcohol sales and income, which could not be controlled by the SGP, was unknown.

6.           Two consultation surveys had been undertaken in respect of the review of the PSPO.  The first survey, of partners, attracted 22 responses from consultees including the police, Experience Guildford, Pub Watch, Street Angels, Riverside and the University of Surrey.  The second survey was a public survey which received over 600 responses, 90% of which were from Borough residents.

7.           Further to the reference in the report to only ‘interested people’ being able to challenge the PSPO, it was explained that the definition of interested people was set out in statutory guidance and referred to those who lived in, or regularly worked in or visited, the area.  The grounds for challenge were that the Council did not have the power to make / vary the PSPO, or to include particular prohibitions or requirements within it, or that the statutory requirements were not complied with.  There had been instances of the PSPOs of other councils being challenged on the grounds that they targeted specific groups of people e.g. the homeless.

8.           With regard to breaches of PSPOs, penalties were dictated by statute and would be framed in the enforcement policy.  Work was currently taking place with partners, particularly the Council’s Enforcement Team and the police who were the primary enforcers, to identify the best approach being mindful of the people most likely to be affected.  Possible penalties included confiscating alcohol or issuing warnings or Fixed Penalty Notices (fines) which could ultimately lead to court hearings.  However, issuing warnings or Fixed Penalty Notices were only two of a number of responses and were seen as a last resort as the PSPO was primarily intended to be an educational tool.

In conclusion, the EAB agreed that officers should:

·        Send to the EAB the existing PSPO together with the associated map depicting the geographical area to which it related to enable councillors to suggest any possible expansion of the area covered by the PSPO.

·        Circulate to the EAB and to ward and parish councillors a comprehensive e-mail providing information regarding the reporting of anti-social behaviour, support for victims and the role of the JAG (including a referral form) together with directions to the Council’s new webpages at www.guildford.gov.uk/pspo for further information as part of the communications plan for the SGP.

·        Follow up previous notifications to Tongham Parish Council advising of the route to report anti-social behaviour issues and, if deemed appropriate, draw its attention to the possibility of introducing a PSPO in the future to tackle related problems.

·        Consider adding fly tipping to the list of anti-social behaviour issues felt to be in need of addressing in the Borough.