Decision details

Matter for decision

The report detailed a review of evidence of anti-social behaviour by punt and tour touts in the City and considered the proposal in principle to make a Public Spaces Protection Order.

 

Decision of the Leader

i.             Approved in principle the proposal to make a Public Spaces Protection Order in the form set out in Appendix A

ii.            Authorised Officers to publicise the proposed Order and to carry out the necessary consultation required under the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Safer Communities Section Manager.

 

Ms Glasberg addressed the Committee and made the following points:

i.             She was a resident of Newnham and was interested in the beauty of the City.

ii.            There was a clear problem with the number of touters but questioned whether a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) was the only answer.

iii.           If companies failed to obtain a licence to punt then this should be a matter for the Courts.

iv.          The proposed PSPO plan covered a large area which included important green spaces.

v.           Enforcement of a PSPO would require a lot of signage, which would need to be prominent. There was already a lot of street clutter and no review of signage had been undertaken.

vi.          The environmental impact assessment within the Officer’s report stated that there would be a nil impact and this was incorrect as this was only based on carbon footprint.

The Leader made the following comments:

i.             The environmental impact assessment needed to include local as well as wider impacts.

ii.            A consultation exercise would be undertaken on the proposed PSPO.

iii.           The Order would address the issue of punt touts in the City Centre not the licensing of punts on the river. It was considered that intervention was necessary.

iv.          Held off proposals of a budgetary nature until the meeting tonight had taken place.

v.           If the PSPO was taken forward, signage would be required to inform people of the Order.

vi.          Existing signage was not clear for members of the public to access the river and this would be improved.

Mr Whyte addressed the Committee and made the following points:

i.             He was a member of the public who knew both sides and had lived in Cambridge all of his life.

ii.            The issue with punt touts was a seasonal issue.

iii.           Questioned if permits like those issued for buskers could be used, so for one strike get a warning and for a second strike lose the permit.

iv.          A balance needed to be reached, he did not want a total ban, this seemed heavy handed but control of the numbers of punt touts was acceptable.

v.           Punts run by Independent punt companies made up 6% of river usage.

vi.          Touting created student seasonal employment.

The Leader made the following comments:

i.             The points that had been made would be considered.

ii.            Issues regarding touting used to be on Bridge Street however the issue was now across the City centre.

iii.           It was a judgement whether the issue with touting was so serious that action needed to be taken.

Mr Kovacevick addressed the Committee and made the following points:

i.             Owned an Independent Punt Company.

ii.            Stated that his company may have to close down if the Council’s plans came into fruition.

iii.           Questioned the maximum costs anticipated for enforcement and legal costs regarding challenges and signage.

iv.          Questioned who was accountable for the PSPO.

v.           Questioned why byelaws were not sufficient enforcement mechanisms.

vi.          Questioned whether the PSPO was the Council’s only plan or if other further action was being considered.

vii.         Had applied for a licence since 2012 but had always been refused.

viii.       A PSPO was different to a byelaw, there was no evidence to support a PSPO.

ix.          Had tried to contact the Council to discuss the issue and questioned what efforts had been made to contact Independent Companies.

The Leader made the following points:

i.             As Leader the responsibility for the PSPO sat with him.

ii.            The issue with punt touts was changing the nature of the City centre.

iii.           A byelaw and PSPO were enforcement instruments which needed to be consulted on; people’s views would be assessed and the proposals considered following a consultation.

iv.          There were other ways in which punt touts could operate, for example online.

v.           The river could be sign posted better from the City centre.

vi.          No one had tried to contact him regarding this issue. He was happy to meet Independent Operators.

Mr Searle addressed the Committee and made the following comments:

i.             Was a Kings Parade Operator.

ii.            Questioned if consideration had been given to licensing Kings Parade operators.

iii.           Asked what thought had been given to those who will become unemployed if the proposals were approved.

iv.          If people are not allowed to sell tickets it will put people out of business.

The Leader made the following comments:

i.             The main issue was about anti-social behaviour and he was not commenting about punting on the river.

ii.            The proposal may challenge how people conduct their business, however all comments, including alternative proposals put forward as part of the consultation would be considered.

iii.           As an example 50 punt touts were counted on one day.

Mr Sugden addressed the Committee and made the following comments:

i.             Was a Director of a Punt Operator based in Garret Hostel Lane.

ii.            Questioned the commercial interests of the Council.

iii.           Questioned whether the Council considered the act of punting unacceptable.

iv.          Stated if touting was banned in the City centre then all touting should be banned.

v.           Thanked the Leader for agreeing to meet with them.

vi.          Questioned what the definition of touting was and asked if touting in itself was considered to be anti-social.

vii.         Pushed for a collaborative way forward.

The Leader made the following comments:

i.             Commented that he was not proud of the City when tourists and the general public were accosted by punt touts.

ii.            Recognised that punting was of vital interest to the City.

iii.           The City Council owned La Mimosa punt station and had financial arrangements with Quayside. These interests were relatively minor.

iv.          33 complaints were evidence of anti-social behaviour, the definition of touting would have to be carefully considered.

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

i.             Noted the revised PSPO plan which has been circulated in advance of the Committee meeting.

ii.            There was a long standing issue regarding touting behaviour.

iii.           Signage of the PSPO would be a major issue.

iv.          Questioned how the PSPO would address tout operators and intermediaries.

v.           Enforcement of the PSPO would be required and questioned where resources for this would come from.

vi.          Hoped stakeholders would be included in the consultation exercise.

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Legal Services confirmed that the City Council did not have the power to introduce a licence system for punt touts.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Leader said the following:

i.             An open consultation would be conducted and any views on the issue would be welcome.

ii.            Committed to bring signage forward as part of a future report.

iii.           The City Council was not focussed on a particular operator, it was a wider issue.

iv.          The Police had confirmed their support to resolve the touting issue and enforcement would be undertaken jointly between the Police and the City Council.

v.           The consultation would be made available on the Council’s website.

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.