A report from the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment and Executive Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care is attached. (Key decision – reference number 4568)
(8.30 – 8.35 pm)
Councillor Daniel Anderson (Cabinet Member for Environment) introduced the report of the Executive Director of Health, Housing and Adult Social Care and Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment (No.91).
1. That this represented an extensive piece of work and introduced a range of measures to tackle anti-social behaviour issues. Public views had been sought and a robust evidenced based process followed.
2. The anti-social behaviours that had been identified for a series of Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) as set out in paragraph 3.2.1 of the report. There had been positive support received through the consultation feedback as set out in the report.
3. Members went through each PSPO detailed in the report on an individual basis. The comments and discussions arising are set out below, those with no issues arising were accepted without further question.
4. Prohibit the holding of fireworks to cause intimidation etc or throwing of fireworks: In response to a question raised by Councillor Brett, it was noted that this could only be applied to public land. Measures would be taken to publicise this PSPO particularly during the months when fireworks were most prevalent. This proposed PSPO was accepted by Members.
5. Dog Controls: Failure of the person in charge of a dog to have it on a lead at all times in the designated area: In response to issues raised by Councillor Sitkin further clarification would be provided within the wording of the PSPO.
6. Dog Controls: The maximum number of dogs in a person’s charge is four unless in possession of a valid licence issued by the Council permitting up to six dogs. A discussion took place on this issue with a number of concerns raised by Councillor Sitkin with regard the number of dogs specified. Questions were raised as to when a licence would be required and by whom and the potential impact on individuals owning more than 4 dogs. Members also noted the need to protect all park users, particularly children, and for multiple dog owners/walkers to ensure that dog fouling was effectively dealt with. The controllable nature of the dogs in question was also a factor. There were a range of associated factors. Members also questioned how this PSPO would be effectively enforced. The comment received from the Kennel Club, detailed in the report, was noted. In conclusion Members noted the need to balance the needs of dog walkers and other park users. This PSPO was agreed in principle subject to further work being undertaken to consider the required controls over dogs, the numbers involved and control mechanisms in place. This would be delegated to Councillor Anderson to agree following further work undertaken by officers to address Members’ concerns.
7. Prostitution: Councillor Brett requested amendments to the wording to require consideration being given to “signpost sex workers to other jobs” and for prosecuted kerb crawlers to be referred to “appropriate behaviour training programmes”. It was noted that the PSPO would provide another enforcement tool in addition to those police powers that were already in existence.
8. Vehicles Deposited on Land: In response to discussion, Members noted the restrictions that applied to the Council’s powers in dealing with such matters.
9. Parking Around Schools: Members were advised that this proposed PSPO had been withdrawn for the time-being pending further work on this and wider issues affecting schools. Following the completion of the work required, this would be presented to a future Cabinet meeting for consideration and agreement.
10. In conclusion, Members supported all of the PSPOs detailed in the report with the exception of “The maximum number of dogs in a person’s charge is four unless in possession of a valid licence issued by the Council permitting up to six dogs” and; “Parking Around Schools”, as detailed above.
Members expressed their thanks and appreciation to Sue McDaid and her team for the extensive and comprehensive work that had been undertaken.
Alternative Options Considered: NOTED, the detailed alternative options considered as set out in section 4 of the report including:
· To not introduce any Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs).
· To introduce PSPOs to replace Dog Control Orders and Designated Public Place Orders only.
· To introduce all the orders contained within the original proposals.
· Preferred Option – to agree to the making of the Orders as outlined in section 3.5 of the report.
DECISION: The Cabinet
1. Considered and noted the outcome of the public consultation (as detailed in Appendices 1 and 2 and paragraph 3.4 of the report).
2. Considered and noted the Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendix 4 of the report) and consideration of the Human Rights Act (as detailed in paragraph 3.6.3 of the report).
3. Agreed to approve the Public Spaces Protection Orders as outlined in paragraph 3.5.2 of the report and Appendix 3 of the report, with the exceptions outlined in the minutes above in relation to “The maximum number of dogs in a person’s charge is four unless in possession of a valid licence issued by the Council permitting up to six dogs” and; “Parking Around Schools”. The Cabinet Member for Environment and the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment to undertake more detailed appraisal of the options regarding pick-up and drop-off around schools.
4. Agreed that the maximum amount of £100 be agreed as the level of the Fixed Penalty Notice, with no discount for payment within 14 days.
Reason: The proposed PSPOs would help address concerns raised by the public with the Police and Council about anti-social behaviour occurring in the Borough. The intention of PSPOs was to stop individuals or groups committing anti-social behaviour in a public space so that the law-abiding majority could use and enjoy public spaces, safe from anti-social behaviour.
(Key decision – reference number 4568)