Agenda item

This report informs Cabinet of the findings of a public consultation exercise to review the existing Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) which expires on 31 March 2020.  The report recommends to Cabinet options for a new PSPO to be effective from 1 April 2020.

The Cabinet

            RESOLVED – That

(1)  Option 2 be adopted for the provision of a new Public Spaces Protection Order;

(2)  Option 2 contains the following restrictions and requirements at all times.  The order and geographical areas are as set out in Appendix B of the report:

(a)  Alcohol Restriction

No person shall refuse to stop drinking alcohol or refuse to hand over any container believed to contain alcohol when required to do so by an authorised Officer

(b)  Anti-Social Behaviour

All persons are prohibited from behaving in a way which causes or is likely to cause nuisance, harassment, alarm or distress to a member or members of the public

(3)  The new Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) is implemented and effective from 1 April 2020; and

(4)  A sum of £10,000 is allocated for the promotion and signage of the agreed PSPO.

The Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing, Councillor Mrs Yeates, presented this item stating that the current PSPO in Arun would expire on 31 March 2020 and Cabinet was being asked to consider two proposals and to confirm its preferred option for a new order to be effective from 1 April 2020 to March 2023.  She explained that both options had been formulated from both public and Member consultations that had taken place last year and in January 2020.

The report outlined the scope and purpose of the proposed PSPO options, the legal requirements of making such an order along with the outcomes of the consultation and an options appraisal matrix to assist the Cabinet in making its decision.  Councillor Mrs Yeates stated that she had pleasure in welcoming Chief Inspector Jon Carter, the District Commissioner for Arun, to the meeting who had worked closely with the Council, however, it had to be emphasised that it was the Council who had responsibility for deciding and making the order.

The Chairman then invited the Group Head of Community Wellbeing to present the highlights of his report.  He reminded Members that the Council was obliged to consult on any new order that it wished to make and that an extensive consultation exercise had been undertaken to consider the options for the new order.  He reminded Members that it was the Council who made the new order for the benefit of its communities, but that the enforcement of it would be a joint endeavour between the Council, its agents and Sussex Police.

The purpose of the order was to tackle anti-social behaviour in geographically defined areas based on reported incidents and the likelihood that anti-social behaviour would have a detrimental effect on the lives of those living in the community. Where these incidents had been identified, consideration had been given to either a prohibition or a restriction of activities that promulgated such behaviours.  Members were asked to note that where a prohibition was proposed, this would affect everyone in the restricted area.

            The two proposals offered for consideration had evolved following consultation in accordance with PSPO guidelines.  Proposals were then offered for public consultation and resulted in 749 responses.  These had been summarised in Section 1.2 of the report.  Finally, a workshop had been held for all Members of the Council to explain the proposals put forward.  The two proposals for the Cabinet to consider were:

Option 1 – an alcohol-free zone in the Town Centres of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and an alcohol restriction across a wider area of both Towns, which included a prohibition for behaving in an antisocial manner; and

            Option 2 – which was the same as option 1, but without the alcohol-free zones in             the Town Centres.

Finally, Cabinet’s attention was drawn to the resources available to enforce the current PSPO and any new order.  These were the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Caseworkers, Sussex Police and if suitably qualified, agents such as the Business Wardens.

The Chairman then invited Chief Inspector Carter to present his views. He confirmed that he had been fully engaged in the consultation process and in relation to the two options presented to the Cabinet.  He confirmed that Option 1 presented significant challenges in terms of the resources available to properly enforce alcohol free-zones. The issuing of a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) was just one tool that could be used but would not resolve all of the issues surrounding problematic street drinking.  The powers that PCSOs had were then explained confirming that they could not forcibly remove alcohol, this required a warranted Officer which was a limited resource. 

The Cabinet then asked a series of questions.  One was whether the PSPO would prevent customers consuming alcohol at a licensed premises from being able to drink outside. Comments were also made about the results of the survey as outlined in Appendix E of the report in terms of proposals to tackle anti-social behaviour in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton Town Centres. There was concern about the lack of resources in place to properly enforce the restrictions contained within Option 1 and that it would be wrong to raise public expectation that alcohol would be prohibited in alcohol free zones if this could not actually take place.   A long discussion took place on the issue of enforcing alcohol-free zones with the resources that were available.  The Chief Inspector agreed that it would be a challenge to resource Option 1 from a police perspective.   It was acknowledged that street-drinking was a multi-faceted problem and required a multi-agency approach to tackle the issue, and the PSPO by itself would not successfully tackle and reduce this issue.

The Chairman then invited questions from members of the public who had submitted their questions in line with the Council’s Constitution.

The first questioner stated that he was especially concerned about the area being covered in the new PSPO and had serious reservations about the impact that this would have on anti-social behaviour rather than purely alcohol related behaviour.  He stated that residents in Littlehampton along the River path from the Look & Sea Centre to River Road were exasperated by the regular and ongoing anti-social behaviour which occurred mainly in the evenings around the seats facing the River and n the Town Square Gardens in the vicinity of the car park in Surrey Street.  He asked why this area had been excluded from the PSPO?  Much of the anti-social behaviour experienced was from under 18s congregating in large groups after school hours.  The report had quoted ‘Reboot’ as a scheme for youth offenders which he felt should be deal with this situation and he asked how effective was this scheme?

The Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing, Councillor Mrs Yeates, responded stating that the initial proposals that had been put out to public consultation did exclude the area around the Town Square.  However, following the public consultation and representations received from residents the overall boundary now included this location in both Options being put forward.

            The questioner was invited to ask a supplementary question.  He referred to the geographical areas to be covered by any future PSPO in terms of applying alcohol restrictions stating that the anti-social behaviour problems that he was experiencing went beyond the zones shown on the maps.

            The Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh, reassured the questioner stating that the original proposals did not extend to the whole of the blue area to include riverside walk, but that this had now been included in both options.  As a result of the representations received, Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that the restriction zone had also been extended to include Angmering.

The Chairman then invited the second questioner to ask his question.  He stated that he appreciated the difficulties with enforcement, however, the problems that he and his nearby neighbours were experiencing were not from street drinkers but more from casual drinkers assembling along the benches near Netley Court.  This was having a detrimental effect on their lives.  The area to be covered by the alcohol-free zone in Option 1 of the proposed new Order had been reduced from that proposed in the public consultation.  For example, no part of the river walkway had been included whereas the section downstream from Surrey Street was originally to be included.  The questioner believed that the whole of the walkway where the benches were positioned should be covered as they were a magnet for and facilitated anti-social behaviour.  The proposed new alcohol free zone in Option 1 would assist in tackling these problems, so could the Cabinet Member please provide her views on whether the River Walkway should be excluded from the alcohol-free zone and re-assure residents that if Option 1 as proposed was approved that rigorous steps would be taken to enforce the alcohol restriction zone in this area.

It was agreed that this question had been responded to during the debate and so the second questioner asked his second question submitted.  This addressed the issue of enforcement and that it would assist if anti-social behaviour officers could patrol the area more as this did act as a deterrent.  Although the report referred to PCSOs they had no legal powers, could they be given additional powers? The report did not mention contributions from the Parishes in the Littlehampton Zone which were required to pay for enforcement.  There were ongoing problems of anti-social behaviour and residents needed to have an effective way to summons assistance during the night rather than relying on reporting incidents using the 101 service. 

Chief Inspector Carter responded to this question explaining the overlap between PCSOs and Business Wardens.  In terms of the anti-social behaviour caused by under 18s, he explained the REBOOT scheme and how effective this was.  Expanding on the issues experienced with under 18s, this was a much wider piece of work that needed to take place.  He was not aware of many of the issues raised which were of concern to him. He would therefore look at organising some targeted activity and would liaise with the Council’s Community Safety team, which was outside the remit of the discussion for tonight.

            The Chairman concluded that there were two options for the Council to consider.  The Chief Inspector had submitted his opinions and it was clear that Option 2 presented the best solution.  Following some further discussion, Councillor Dr Walsh proposed Option 2 which was seconded by Councillor Lury.

On this being put to the vote it was declared CARRIED. 

The Cabinet

            RESOLVED – That

(1)  Option 2 be adopted for the provision of a new Public Spaces Protection Order containing the following restrictions and requirements at all times.  The draft Order and geographical areas to be as outlined in Appendix B of the report:

(a)          Alcohol Restriction

No person shall refuse to stop drinking alcohol or refuse to hand over any container believed to contain alcohol when required to do so by an authorised officer.

(b)          Anti-social Behaviour

All persons are prohibited from behaving in a way which causes or is likely to cause nuisance, harassment, alarm or distress to a member or members of the public

(2)  The new Order is implemented with effect from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2023;

(3)  A sum of £10,000 is allocated for the promotion and signage of the agreed PSPO.

The Cabinet confirmed its decision as per Decision Notice C/034/10020, a copy of which is attached to the signed copy of the Minutes.