Agenda item
Extension to the Alcohol Public Space Protection Order
- Meeting of Overview & Scrutiny Panel, Tuesday, 18th June, 2024 7.00 pm (Item 33.)
- View the background to item 33.
Report to follow
Minutes:
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 that had actions for preventing offending. These actions were to be rolled out in the next twelve months;
- There currently were five officers in the Community team, including the manager. Kent Police were looking to increasing officer numbers;
- Officers were going to check on the actual police officer numbers to be added and report back to the Panel;
- The Council conducted some awareness campaigns to educate women on the crime of harassment. Officers would check if these campaigns included school visits and reports to the Panel;
- Officers used Community Warning Notices as the first action against offenders. That would be followed by a Community Protection Notice and any further re-offending would result in a fine;
- The burden of proof was the likelihood of something happening and it was to be reported at the time this incident was happening;
- This new Order was not meant to stifle freedom of speech but to address situations where individuals felt intimidated moving in streets where there were street drinkers;
- The council uses restorative justice in some areas;
- Any recommendations for additional funding to enforce the PSPO would have to go to Full Council for approval and this could be included in the budget proposals for 2025/26.
Councillor Green proposed and Councillor Wing seconded that the Panel recommends to Cabinet following that:
The Panel had concerns about resources for enforcing the PSPO and the justifying enforcement without adequate resources.
When put to the vote the motion was lost.
Councillor Austin proposed Councillor Wing seconded and the Panel agreed to forward to Cabinet the following recommendations, that:
The Panel had concerns about resources for enforcing the new combined PSPO.
Supporting documents:
-
PSPO Overview and Scrutiny Panel Report 2024 - TOM - Google Docs, item 33.
PDF 93 KB
-
Annex 1 - Draft PSPO 2024-2027 - Google Docs, item 33.
PDF 624 KB
-
Annex 2 - Summary and Analysis of Survey Data - Google Docs, item 33.
PDF 44 KB
-
Annex 3 - ASB_Alcohol PSPO Communit Equality Impact Assessment - Google Docs, item 33.
PDF 128 KB