Agenda item

To consider the report of the Assistant Director Environment.

The Assistant Director Environment presented the report advising Members on the process and consideration towards the implementation of a Public Spaces Protection Order in the City Centre area of Exeter. The report sought agreement to enter into consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders on the draft proposals for a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) and for a report to be brought back to this Committee, Executive and Council at the end of this year, with recommendations as to the implementation, or otherwise, of a Public Spaces Protection Order.

The justification for the identified area was based on intelligence from the Devon and Cornwall Police and the Council’s Control Room, together with views canvassed from the public. It was considered that, within the City Centre, the prevalence of anti-social behaviour was relatively high in comparison with other parts of the city, and at a level where the mechanisms offered by the proposed PSPO would enable, either a control method, where one does not exist at present or an alternative control measure more easily used by agencies and one that does not necessarily criminalise a perpetrator in breach of the PSPO. 

He explained that the proposed boundaries of the PSPO detailed in the report may change in light of representations, for example, some Members had already asked for the inclusion of Belmont Park and the open space in Bonhay Road. He outlined the following procedures and actions contained within the proposed PSPO and gave examples of what they sought to control and what they did not intend to intervene over:-

·         surrender of any intoxicants (alcohol, legal highs and other stimulants);

·         urinating in the street;

·         begging;

·         removing encampments, bedding and associated paraphernalia in public spaces; and

·         dispersing groups or individuals causing anti-social behaviour;

He advised that guidance would be developed alongside the PSPO to inform agencies and the public and responded as follows to Members’ queries:-

• because of the draconian nature of the new powers there was a need for clear justification to be shown when introducing an Order, therefore it was not appropriate for the whole of the City to be covered, as there were many parts where such anti-social behaviour problems did not exist to the same extent. It’s application should be surgical in nature rather than the wholesale, but this did not mean that there were not other specific areas of the City where a PSPO would be justified in the future;
• Home Office guidance for the implementation of a  PSPO identified the requirement for public consultation;
• In terms of exercising the tools of the PSPO, the Police and Police Community Support Officer would be the main agents of intervention. The expectation was that interventions/incidents would be recorded by the Police, together with incidents recorded by the City Council’s CCTV Control Room. Incidents of anti social behaviour outside the PSPO area would be reviewed to identify potential dispersal;
• the University would be one of the consultees;
• close liaison with Customer Access Housing Needs would continue because of the relationship between anti social behaviour and rough sleeping, begging etc. A new outreach provider ‘Julian House’, was starting in October to engage rough sleepers and assist them to access support and accommodation services. It was recognised that a minority were difficult to engage and often resisted offers of accommodation. It was noted that encouraging their engagement was the adopted approach but that a line was drawn when behaviour became intolerable. It would be at this point that enforcement action would be used. It was also highlighted that a recent review had shown only around 20% of those begging were homeless, and therefore the issue needed to be addressed in a wider arena than the outreach team; and
• it would not be practicable to store confiscated encampment paraphernalia for potential reclaiming by rough sleepers because of difficulties in storage, identification with owner, and administration of such a facility.

Scrutiny Committee Community noted and supported the report and asked Executive to:-

(1)        agree the contents of the draft Public Space Protection Orders, in the area defined by the map in the report (Appendix I), together with the prohibitions and actions contained in Appendix II of the report;

(2)        instruct officers to seek the views of the public and other stakeholders through public consultation, with a view to reporting back to Scrutiny Committee - Community, Executive and Council at the end of 2015; and

(3)        recommendations to be made in that report on the adoption or otherwise of a  Public Spaces Protection Order for approval by Council.