Issue - meetings

Report to follow

Cabinet discussed recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Panel following a call-in by the Panel of the 25 July 2024 Cabinet decision on this matter. Cabinet was asked by the Panel to consider the concerns reported by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on the 20 August regarding the Public Spaces Protection Order decision. The Overview and Scrutiny Panel reported the following to Cabinet, that:

“The Overview and Scrutiny Panel supported the aim of the proposed PSPO and considered that the PSPO was necessary for some areas of Thanet. However the Panel had some concerns that some of the detail of some aspects of the proposed PSPO may be open to question. The Panel therefore requested that Cabinet looked again at those areas to ensure that the PSPO could be smoothly implemented.”

Cabinet had to consider the concerns raised by the Panel and decide whether or not it should rescind its decision based on the concerns expressed by the Panel. The report set out the history of this decision including the legal history and Cabinet also noted that the Free Speech Union had written to the Council under the pre-action protocol for Judicial Review. They made it clear that they intended to challenge the PSPO if it was implemented in its current form as per the Cabinet decision on 25 July. This was a clear risk to the Council, certainly in relation to Council finances.

Cabinet made it clear that the Free Speech Union, while entitled to its opinion, was a private company established in December 2019 and that it was making a legal argument, for its own ideological reasons. However it framed its position at the extraordinary Panel meeting, it was not to be regarded as providing the Council with impartial legal advice and any decision made by Cabinet on the night did not mean that the Council accepted its arguments.

Councillors at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting described feeling bullied by the Free Speech Union, which was not based in Thanet and could not just be assumed to be acting in the best interests of Thanet residents. Cabinet said that the Council would not be bullied, but recognised that in responding to this challenge Cabinet needed to ensure that the Council position was as robust as it could be, in order to protect public funds. Cabinet also noted that, in a recent tweet, the Free Speech Union boasted that it had a four-person legal team and a five-person case team, together with a picture of its founder Toby Young, and a GB News headline about “Labour’s first salvo in the war of free speech”. Cabinet further said that the public could draw its own conclusions about the political independence of the Free Speech Union from material online.

It was also mentioned at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel that provisions in the PSPO could be benign under the current administration but misused by others in the future. However, this Order was not legislation. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35

Report to follow

The Chair invited Mr Stephen O’Grady to speak under the Overview and |Scrutiny Panel procedure rules for public speaking. Mr O’Grady made the following points:

·  Mr O’Grady said that he was not at the meeting to tell the Panel what to recommend to Cabinet, but wanted to highlight some objections behalf of the Free Speech Union regarding the public consultation process for the proposed PSPO;

·  The Union did not have any objections regarding the PSPO in principle;

·  The Union was concerned about whether sufficient information had been provided to the public  regarding the PSPO proposals;

·  The Union felt that there was insufficient information that was provided to the public;

·  Conscious objections should have been considered by the Council. However no mention was made of these objections by the Council;

·  The Union felt that Cabinet did not have all the information when it made the decision on the PSPO proposals on 25 July 2024;

·  The Union agreed that the Council was not obliged to conduct the public consultation. However once it had conducted the consultation, the Council should have considered objections made by the public;

·  Mr O’Grady said that some of the prohibitions being proposed in the new PSPO would infringe on the human rights of the public. The specific law on PSPOs required specific regard to the human rights;

·  The terms of the proposed PSPO failed to meet the legal requirements;

·  The proposed PSPO had far too much discretion given to enforcement  officers;

·  The PSPO should set boundaries for enforcement officers;

·  Implementing the Order in its current form would risk the Council facing litigation;

·  Mr O’Grady asked that the Cabinet decision be rescinded and the process be started afresh.

The Chair advised the meeting that item 5 on the agenda was a restricted item and could only be discussed in detail in a private session.

Ingrid Brown, Head of Legal and Democracy & Monitoring Officer introduced the report and made the following comments:

·  In discussing this call-in the Panel could not act as a court of law;

·  What the Monitoring Officer would say in the open session of the meeting would be legally confined as most of the detail was contained in the confidential document;

·  However the detail provided in the public report was enough for the Panel to come up with a view on the matter;

·  The Panel could not revoke the Cabinet decision, but just advise Cabinet on a course of action after reviewing the Cabinet decision in question;

·  The Panel Chair received a letter from the Free Speech Union about the potential legal challenge regarding the 25 July 2024 Cabinet decision;

·  The Monitoring Officer determined that there were enough grounds for a call-in as a proper consultation was not duly done;

·  The Overview and Scrutiny Panel had reviewed the Cabinet proposals on 18 June 2024 and 16 July 2024;

·  Changes were made to the original PSPO proposals before they were agreed by Cabinet on 25 July;

·  The current PSPO was due to expire at the end of July  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23

Members discussed recommendations for the adoption of the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), which tackles anti-social behaviour and regulates alcohol consumption in Thanet District. The PSPO was introduced to tackle anti-social behaviour, as well as public disorder related to alcohol consumption in public places. Kent Police also requested this Order.

This included anti-social group congregations, misuse of public space, using foul or abusive language, excreting bodily fluids, street drinking, public intoxication, and disturbances caused by alcohol-related activities, and the PSPO had been successful in reducing these issues thereby improving the safety and well-being of the community. This included the new submissions of the use of legal psychoactive substances and intoxicants and inappropriate harmful and degrading related activity. The PSPO also allowed alcohol to be confiscated and disposed of without the need for a Fixed Penalty Notice being issued. Education and communication were also key to reducing such instances and their recurrence. The PSPO also allowed anti-social behaviour to be tackled with education and communication prior to enforcement.

The recommended combining of the ASB and Alcohol PSPO would allow Thanet to be covered with the PSPO restrictions in the four main urban areas, Ramsgate, Margate, Broadstairs and Birchington and allow the previously location based restricted ASB PSPO, covering Margate and Ramsgate, to be geographically expanded. This would allow education and enforcement of the PSPO to take place within the designated area and ‘hot spot’ areas to be tackled more effectively. Officers in the Community Safety Team would continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Order and assess the potential for any necessary adjustments to ensure it remained an effective tool in regulating ASB and alcohol consumption in public places. This would mean that this PSPO would be initially introduced for the period of one year.

The team would also continue to work closely with the Police and other partners to ensure consistent education and enforcement of the Order. The Council was committed to creating a safer and healthier community for residents and visitors. Extending the PSPO would support this goal and combat anti-social behaviour, public disorder and alcohol related negative behaviour in public spaces for the benefit of all.

Members were asked to note that an amendment to the Order as published was proposed in restriction 3 of the proposed order, which concerned using foul language. In this restriction, it was proposed the words, ‘offence and upset’ were removed from the version of the order that had been published. This was so that the restriction imposed was the least restrictive to achieve its objectives. It was proposed that the amended restriction read, ‘all persons are prohibited from using foul or abusive language in such a manner that is loud and can be heard by others and cause either alarm or distress to any other person in any public place.’

A further amendment was proposed to the published report in that it was proposed that the Order be made for a period of one year, as opposed to the three years  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23

Report to follow

Penny Button, Head of Neighbourhoods, presented this report and made the following points:

·  The Council’s antisocial behaviour PSPO and alcohol PSPA were due to expire on 31 July 2024;

·  This resulted in a positive impact in Thanet, reducing the numbers of negative behaviours.

The Panel discussed the report, made comments and asked questions as follows:

·  Councillors asked how Thanet District Council worked with the police on these issues, as they cited an experience when street drinking was reported, but the police were busy at the time. Officers replied that they work with the police to focus on different hot spots as well as working with the Forward Trust, Rise Team and other mental health services. This was to tackle the problem from a holistic point of view, rather than an enforcement one;

·  Councillors mentioned that they had issue with the vagueness behind the definition of Section 7 of the report, which was defined as “All persons prohibited from using language or behaviour causing or likely to cause harassment or alarm, or distress to any other person” as they had a problem defining more specifically what that meant as they believed this could be applied to anyone who decided to be part of a protest. Officers informed Councillors that this definition did not cover protests, but did apply to a congregation of two or more people being abusive, threatening, alarming, insulting, harassing and distressing as identified in legislation;

·  Legal officers mentioned that the way the order was drafted needed further review due to some of the provisions that were too wide. Changes had been made to it, covering a significant change to the restricted area, which no longer covered the whole of Thanet, but only areas where the Council had evidence that those activities were being restricted. Also the restriction behind antisocial congregation was narrowed and defined as what was previously stated. The misuse of public space restriction has also been narrowed, to apply to only areas where the public space is not being used as intended. The restriction for abusive language was also narrowed to only apply to the use of foul or abusive language, that is used in such a manner which is loud, can be heard by others and causes offence, upset, alarm or distress. The consumption of alcohol restriction was also narrowed to apply to those consuming alcohol in restricted areas and behaving in a way to cause nuisance, harassment, alarm and distress. The restriction behind the requirement for someone to surrender their container of alcohol had also been narrowed, to apply to someone who is intoxicated and is causing a nuisance, alarm or distress. These restrictions have also been defined to apply to the use of legal psychoactive substances as well;

·  Councillors expressed their desire to have other teams and services more involved with this rather than just the police and enforcement, for example with the look of the town when it came to cosmetics, such as flower beds. They asked if signage could be looked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9

The item was deferred.

Report to follow

Penny Button, Head of Neighbourhoods introduced the report and said that the new Order was a combining the Alcohol PSPO and the other current PSPO. The current two PSPOs only covered the urban areas and the proposed Order would now cover some rural areas as well. The Panel was requested to review the proposals in the report.

The Panel discussed the report, made comments and asked questions as follows:

• Some residents had raised concerns regarding the content of the proposed Order, which did not define harassment and stress. Was there an increase in this type of crime or were there hotspots for such crimes that would provide justification for effecting such an Order?
• It was important for the Council to protect freedom of speech. The proposed PSPO was legally flawed and could be legally challenged;
• Has there been a reported increase in anti-social behaviour?
• What was the argument for increasing the extent of the Order? Would it not result in a decrease in resources available for enforcing the Order?
• Who was the authorised person to enforce this Order?
• Did KCC have community wardens who could help with enforcement of the Order?
• Was this new Order going to replace any other provisions in the current Order?
• One Member raised the concern that whilst welcoming the proposed PSPO, it should be noted that anti-social behaviour was being pushed to those areas not covered by PSPOs;
• In addition to PSPOs, were there any preventative measures planned?
• How many officers did the council have to enforce the PSPO and were there any plans to take on extra officers for the summer months?
• How could the Council educate women that harassment was a crime so that they could report such incidents?
• Could the Order be used retrospectively?
• What was the burden of proof for reporting such crimes?
• Could individuals use their mobile phones to record and report incidents?
• The Order should be more focused in its application as there were usually repeat offenders;
• Did the Council signpost people to services for them to understand the impact of these behaviours for both victims and offers?
• It was important to ensure that this new Order could be enforced;
• It was also important to be more focused when making recommendations to Cabinet.

Penny Button and Mike Humber responded as follows:

• Paragraph 7 was the addition, but the rest was still the same as was in the current Order. Definitions were in the legislation;
• There had been an increase in harassment of women over time;
• The Council through the Community team was already undertaking most of the work for enforcing the PSPO;
• TDC Officers and Kent Police were the authorised persons to enforce the Order;
• There was currently a challenge with street drinkers and this was something the Council was looking into;
• KCC wardens would not be given that authority to enforce the PSPO;
• Paragraph 7 was not a replacement of any provisions of the current Order but rather an additional tool for enforcement;
• The Council had a strategy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33