Issue - meetings

17/34/SR Councillor Sarris did not take part in the discussion or vote on this item.

 

Matter for Decision

The report reviewed the impact of the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) (Touting) 2016 since its implementation in September last year. It considered the successful enforcement outcomes and also the challenges and perceptions encountered in enforcing the order. It also looked at the complaints and observations received from the public and the public perception of what the order could achieve to address the issues of punt touting. The report examined the way forward to address the public concerns over touting. It also looked at the enforcement of the PSPO and makes recommendations on the options for the future.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        Agreed to continue with the PSPO as it is, and;

    ii.        Agreed to increase and improve the levels of enforcement;

   iii.        Agreed to improve the communications to the public around successful prosecutions and further raise awareness around the purpose and intent of the PSPO,

  iv.        Agreed to look at the potential to amend and expand the restricted area,

   v.        Agreed to review in full the impact of the increased enforcement next October.

 

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.

 

Opposition councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Highlighted that the PSPO had not worked, the behaviour of creating a nuisance was now more prevalent.

    ii.        The injunction sounded promising, asked whether there was time estimation for the outcome of it?

   iii.        Sought clarification about the problem on the corner near John Lewis referred to in the report.

  iv.        Stated that the policy was only as good as the enforcement. Asked how many officers were responsible for enforcing the PSPO?

   v.        Highlighted the importance of simplicity of any order. Making a policy specifically applicable to a certain group in a certain place just meant the problem moves around and was not tackled.

  vi.        Asked what the best way to communicate the issue to the public would be?

 vii.        Highlighted that the Council needed to think beyond the injunction. The punting companies involved were nimble and had so far outmanoeuvred the Council so they would probably try a different approach to carry out their business even if the injunction was successful.

 

The Safer Communities Section Manager and Head of Community Services said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Clarified that the path next to John Lewis and Metro Bank was private so the touts stand there, this caused an issue for enforcement.

    ii.        The punting companies had found ways around the enforcement by purposefully employing young people to tout, many were too young to receive a fixed penalty fine.

   iii.        Confirmed that there were 7 Enforcement Officers, 6 of which could enforce PSPO’s.

  iv.        Discussion with Environmental Services had been undertaken to increase enforcement.

   v.        Highlighted that the complexity of the existing agreement works well with the companies who adhered to it.

  vi.        Outlined that in order for the PSPO to be enforced, when the public complained they needed to make the distinction that the person was verbally touting rather than just being a nuisance.

 

The Head of Property Services confirmed that the hearing was supposed to be on the 3 October but had been cancelled.  They were waiting for a new date from the High Court. The full hearing would take place a few months after the direction hearing.

 

The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.        The touts had shown no respect for authority, by flaunting the PSPO.

     ii.        The City Council had prepared the ground for the injunction and as the land owner of Garret Lane Hostel they could set their own terms to cover the land.

    iii.        The number of Enforcement Officers had doubled but the touts recognise and avoid them. The Council was committed to stopping the antisocial behaviour but had to judge resource against impact. If the injunction was successful it would need to be heavily resourced.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor 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.