Agenda item

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.