Decision details

To approve the procedure for making Public Spaces Protection Orders and to approve a proposal to make a pilot public spaces protection order.

Matter for Decision

The report set out the result of the officers’ review of potential areas for public spaces protection orders proposed by the Area Committees and asked the Executive Councillor to approve in principle the proposal to make a public spaces protection order in respect of Mill Road Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the front garden of Ditchburn Place; in the form set out at Appendix A of the Officer’s report. Also to authorise officers to publicise the proposed order and to consult.

 

Decision of the Leader

       i.          Approved in principle the proposal to make a public spaces protection order for Mill Road Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the front garden of Ditchburn Place, Cambridge in the form set out at Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Authorised officers to publicise the proposed order and to carry out consultation as required by 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 Communities Section Manager.

 

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

       i.          It was recognised that some areas of the city such as Mill Road Cemetery were affected by anti-social drinking. The Council wished to take steps to address this.

     ii.          The PSPO was designed to stop anti-social street drinking, not displace it by moving drinkers from one area to another.

 

Liberal Democrat Councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Sought clarification regarding the scope of the PSPO, and if it would impact on people having social drinks in public, as well as those who behaved in an anti-social way.

     ii.          Asked how ‘anti-social drinking’ could be quantified in a meaningful way. There were no specifications in the document on how the Police should implement the power. An agreed protocol as discussed in proposals for a Designated Public Places Order in 2006 would address this and ensure the power was used with discretion.

 

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

       i.          The intention of the PSPO was to discourage anti-social drinking in public places. It was not expected to stop people having social drinks at picnics etc.

     ii.          The power was not automatically available to the Police, it had to be given by the Council. This would decentralise its use and enable Officers to make on the spot decisions on whether to exercise the power or not. A Police Constable would have discretion by not having a bureaucratic protocol in place, to be considered alongside any other rules and regulations. The Leader undertook to liaise with the Police regarding the PSPO implementation process. Labour Councillors did not think there was a need for a usage protocol as the PSPO would not stop general drinking, only anti-social street drinking.

   iii.          The evidence base of need for a PSPO was set out in P4 – 7 of the Officer’s report.

   iv.          A PSPO was part of the range of options the Police could use to stop anti-social drinking.

 

Liberal Democrat Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Bick formally proposed to add the following text (shown in bold) to recommendation 1 from the Officer’s report:

 

To approve in principle the proposal to make a public spaces protection order for Mill Road Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the front garden of Ditchburn Place, Cambridge in the form set out at Appendix A subject to agreement with the Police on a protocol defining situations where the power to enforce would be used, namely in response to incidents of anti-social behaviour;

 

On a show of hands the proposal was lost by 5 votes to 3.

 

The Leader and Labour Councillors said the amendment would delay the introduction of the PSPO and a protocol was not needed as the PSPO and 2006 DPPO were two separate entities, and he had arranged a meeting with the police to ask appropriate questions on implementation.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to endorse the recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.