Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Minutes:
Public Question
A member of the public asked a question as set out below.
Mr
Gawthrop raised the following points:
i.
Glisson Road and Tenison Road Area Residents
Association held a meeting week commencing 16 March 2015 and unanimously
expressed approval for the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).
ii.
Residents were angry that the previous iteration of
the PSPO was not accepted in 2006.
iii.
The Mill Road area is still affected by anti-social behavior,
specifically alcohol and drug related. This included intimidating behavior and
discarding used needles.
iv.
Areas specifically affected around Mill Road were
the cemetery and area around Ditchburn Place.
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s report asked the Executive Councillor to approve the
proposal to make a Public Spaces Protection Order in respect of Mill Road
Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the front garden of Ditchburn Place, Cambridge.
Decision
of the Leader
i.
Agreed to make the public spaces protection order
in the form set out at Appendix A, but reference to “authorised person” should
be changed to “Police Community Support Officer”.
ii.
Authorised officers to publicise the proposed order
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 Safer Communities Manager and
Police Inspector Johnson. The Officers tabled details of questions asked in the
PSPO survey; plus an amendment to the report recommendation 2.1 (also Appendix
A1) and Appendix E information:
· Recommendation 2.1
(also Appendix A1) – To make the public spaces protection order in the form set
out at Appendix A1, but reference to
“authorised person” should be changed to “Police Community Support Officer”.
· Appendix E – Draft
signage be simplified to take into account people whose first language may not
be English, or who have difficulty reading; and that the simplified version be
circulated to members of the committee before signs are erected.
The Committee unanimously approved these
amendments.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
Labour Councillors
i.
The PSPO would be an additional tool for the Police
to use to address anti-social
behavior. It will be used with discretion.
ii.
The
intention was for (only) the police to use the PSPO, hence the clarification to
the recommendation wording.
iii.
The
Police should have the discretion on when to implement PSPO. Wording was
developed to help them implement the power. Residents were in favour of it. The
PSPO would only affect three areas, which would benefit children and the
elderly amongst others.
iv.
The
intention is to change signage to clarify that only drinking in public places linked to
anti-social behavior would
be banned, not drinking in public per se. Further work to clarify signage would
be done in future.
v.
Due
to anti-social behavior, some Mill
Road public areas were only used by intoxicated people, not by residents having
picnics etc. It is hoped that the PSPO would address this.
vi.
The
PSPO was proposed for twelve months, then its impact
would be reviewed, to see if it was appropriate to roll out to other areas.
vii.
Took
issue with the proposed Liberal Democrat amendment to recommendations.
Liberal Democrat Councillors
i.
Acknowledged there was anti-social behavior in Mill Road.
ii.
Took
issue with using the PSPO to address anti-social behaviour and said this could be done
using existing police powers.
iii.
Said the PSPO conflicted with the Council’s policy
of engagement by imposing criminal sanctions on people with drug issues etc.
Information on PSPO signs appeared to ban people from drinking alcohol in
public areas, which conflicted with the Leader’s statement that only drinking
linked to anti-social
behavior would be banned. This led to concerns regarding the
implementation/execution of PSPO powers and the impact on people’s civil
liberties.
In response to Members’ questions the Police Inspector said the
following:
i.
The Police would use discretion when asking the
public to stop drinking if associated with anti-social behavior. Advice would be given before
enforcement action taken.
ii.
People
who picnic are unlikely to be affected by the PSPO as they are unlikely to
behave in an anti-social way.
iii.
The
trigger for PSPO enforcement action would be anti-social behavior linked to drinking in public.
iv.
Anti-social behavior would be targeted in the short term,
the situation could be reviewed in future.
v.
Unclear
PSPO signage issues would be resolved.
vi.
Section
34 was hard to implement at present as a way of addressing anti-social behavior.
Liberal Democrat Councillors requested a change
to the recommendations. Councillor Bick formally proposed to amend/add the
following recommendations from the Officer’s report:
· 2.1 To make the
public spaces protection order in the form set out at Appendix A, as amended by the changes on the attached
version of Appendix A1 (as tabled by Liberal Democrat Councillors).
· (New) 2.3 To model the
proposed Notice on the revised version of Appendix E (as tabled by Liberal Democrat Councillors).
The revised recommendations were lost by 5 votes
to 3.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to endorse the
Officer revised 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.
Supporting documents: