Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED

That –

1.     Cllr Liam Shrivastava be appointed as Chair.

2.     Cllr Hau-Yu Tam be appointed as Vice-Chair.

RESOLVED

That –

1.     Cllr Liam Shrivastava be appointed as Chair.

2.     Cllr Hau-Yu Tam be appointed as Vice-Chair.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2023 be agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2023 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

None.

RESOLVED

To refer to the Mayor and Cabinet the key issues and concerns noted during discussion and identified during the Committee’s research with a recommendation that, as the proposal and its implications require further consideration –

the proposed Public Spaces Protection Order should not be progressed until the issues and concerns contained in the referral have been fully considered, the proposed restrictions reviewed, comprehensive and representative engagement with stakeholders undertaken and a report regarding

·         those issues and concerns;

·         the broader policy and activities in place and further opportunities to address the behaviours which are the subject of the order;

·         the findings of that further engagement; and

·         the justification for the order, if it is to be progressed;

brought to the Safer Stronger Communities Select Committee.

Witnesses
Cllr Sophie Davis, Cabinet Member for Housing Management, Homelessness and Community Safety

Jannet Hall, Head of Safer Communities
Daniel Fish-Halvorsen, Anti-social Behaviour Lead
Karen Kemsley, Data Scientist

Superintendent Charlene Pavitt, South East Basic Command Unit - Metropolitan Police Service
Inspector Adrian Hanna, South East Basic Command Unit - Metropolitan Police Service

Aleister Adamson, Senior Legal Advisor – Release

Key points from discussion

4.1.    The Chair explained the Committee knew and accepted how harmful anti-social behaviour (ASB) was. The Committee’s aim was to consider how effective the proposed Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) would be at addressing ASB and how it might affect vulnerable and marginalised people. Ahead of the meeting, the Chair had written to a range of experts and stakeholders to gain insights to inform the Committee’s scrutiny – he tabled the responses received (see Documents tabled at Committee).

4.2.    Officers gave an overview of the proposals and consultation methodology and responses. The Cabinet Member explained the Executive was flexible and receptive to feedback on whether and, if so how and when, the PSPO be implemented.

4.3.    Residents and councillors reported that there were instances of persistent ASB, but the council and Police lacked the powers to tackle it or, where they had relevant powers, they were excessive. The council’s approach to ASB was to engage and support residents to resolve issues before considering enforcement; the PSPO would continue this approach and be a tool of last resort when people refused to stop behaving anti-socially – officers would not be routinely or proactively seeking people to fine. Resorting to fines would indicate a failure to effectively resolve ASB through engagement and support.

4.4.    The PSPO was intended to enable people to enjoy public spaces where they were currently unable to and not to police people’s everyday enjoyment of public spaces.

4.5.    The PSPO would be implemented by council and Police officers; a third-party PSPO enforcement service would not be commissioned. It was later clarified that the Parks Service, to which PSPO powers would be delegated, was a commissioned service. The council would not be able to further outsource its PSPO enforcement functions without review and procurement processes.

4.6.    A memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Police was being considered to ensure both parties were on the same page regarding the enforcement approach.

The Committee then put questions to witnesses from the council. The key points were:

4.7.    The borough’s previous (2018-2021) PSPO applied to the entirety of the borough.

4.8.    It was accepted that data in the Evidence Pack showed the behaviours in question occurred in specific locations. Most of the measures under the proposed PSPO were intended to apply to the entirety of the borough due to the risk that a more geographically limited order would displace ASB to other areas of the borough where PSPO enforcement powers would be lacking unless the PSPO was updated to include those areas – this was likely to lead to resident frustration that the council had lacked the foresight  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED

That the work programme at Appendix D be agreed, subject to the inclusion of a holding item for a further report regarding the proposed Public Spaces Protection Order.

RESOLVED

That the work programme at Appendix D be agreed, subject to the inclusion of a holding item for a further report regarding the proposed Public Spaces Protection Order.