Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
20 Public Spaces Protection Order – Punt and Tour Touting PDF 544 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.