Decision details

The Executive Councillor is recommended to consider the results of the public consultation to decide whether to make a Public Spaces Protection Order to prohibit advertising or soliciting custom for a punt tour, walking tour, hire or use of punts, boats, or similar craft within the Public Spaces.

Matter for Decision

The report considered the statutory consultation exercise conducted by the Council in relation to the proposal to introduce a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) to restrict the advertising or soliciting for custom of a punt tour, walking tour, hire or use of punt boats or similar craft.  

 

Decision of the Leader

     i.        Approved the proposed PSPO as worded in Appendix B

    ii.        Approved the area of the PSPO as indicated on the map at Appendix A

   iii.        Delegated authority to officers to implement signage appropriate to any PSPO that may be agreed.

 

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 Head of Community Services.

 

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

     i.        Commented that punting was very popular and that there were huge quantities of money to be made from it. The area needed to be looked at closely. Supported the PSPO.

    ii.        Expressed concern as a PSPO was a powerful tool and enabled the Council to outlaw activities which were not against the law of the land. Felt that the Council was mixing its objectives and could be subject to challenge. The focus should be on actual behaviour. The hatched areas of the PSPO were problematic and ‘detrimental effect’ should be defined.

   iii.        Asked if the Council had a contractual relationship with all the operators on the river. Commented that the Committee had previously raised issues about the level of signage and that the level of signage was still very extensive and reading p197 of the agenda pack more would be added. Did not feel that this was the correct way to respond to the issue.

  iv.        Asked what the implications were for Granta punts.

   v.        Asked what the position was of operators for un-approved punt stations for touting in excepted areas.

 

Officers said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        The Council had more control over people with whom the Council had licences with as they could be identified more easily and action could be taken against them if necessary.

    ii.        The Council had agreements that restricted touting with 7 operators at La Mimosa, Scudamores at Quayside and Cambridge Chaffeur Punts at Silver Street.

   iii.        Confirmed that Granta punts would still be able to tout in excepted areas.

  iv.        Stated that the voluntary Code of Practice required operators to be licensed and operate from an approved punt station.

 

The Leader said the following:

    i.          Referred back to p43 of the agenda pack.

  ii.          Commented that detrimental effect was a judgement for the Committee.

 iii.          He spoke to Cambridge Bid who commented that punt touting was one of the most significant issues for them.

iv.          Noted the points made by Mr Arnold and referred to p81 of the agenda pack with regards to the discussion about kiosks.

  v.          Referred to p89 of the agenda pack and the areas of the river where people would get punts.

vi.          There was logic that people near the river were probably interested in punting.

vii.          There was a Destination Management Organisation (DMO) which could make arrangements to sell tickets; this company was independent of the Council. The DMO was free to make its own choices. 

viii.          This was a reasonable measure given the interruptions to people going about their day to day life.

ix.          He wanted to get this right.

  x.          Signage had been mentioned and commented that there were only a few new sign locations.

xi.          This would be for a 12 month trial period.

xii.          Did not think that this would be the end of the debate but believed it was an appropriate measure given the scale of the impact.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

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.