Agenda item

(a)           Notice invoking the Call-in;

(b)           Extract from the Cabinet minutes held on 14 September 2023;

(c)           Report and appendices submitted to the Cabinet on 14 September 2023.

The Sub-Committee received the notices in respect of the call-in submitted by 184 signatories in relation to a decision made by the Cabinet on 14 September 2023, on the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) Approval for Publication.  The detail of the grounds for the Call-In were circulated at the meeting. 

The Chair advised the Sub-Committee on the suggested order of proceedings and reminded Members of the timings allowed for submissions and questions.  The Chair then invited the representative of the signatories to present their reasons for the call-in.

The representative began by explaining that the call in was on the decision on the PSPOs Public Spaces Protection Orders and read out the grounds for the Call-In which are attached as appendix to these minutes.

The call in was based on the following reasons.

The Action is not proportionate to the desired outcome.

Restriction on political, charitable, religious activities. Distribution of leaflets.

The PSPO breaches rights contained within Human Rights Legislation

The Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Infrastructure and Community Safety responded to the points raised as below.

The main issue of contention was whether the measures being considered were proportionate.  It was emphasised that there had been significant issues with anti-social behaviour across the borough.

The Leader advised that distinctions were made between what was deemed necessary in the borough as a whole, town and district centres, parks, housing estates, and other areas.  The aim was to be proportionate and only impose restrictions where necessary.  The Cabinet had acknowledged, and consideration had been given to Home Office and Local Government Association (LGA) guidance.  Changes had been made based on feedback, particularly in ensuring that restrictions did not affect charitable, political, or religious activities.  An exemption was added for such activities.  It was discussed that further examination was needed to determine whether the definition of organisations eligible for exemptions should be expanded to include community interest companies or co-ops.  The importance of ensuring reputable organisations and checks and balances for permissions were stressed.

Public liability insurance was discussed in relation to the use of tables and other setups in town centres.  A risk assessment would be carried out in cases where public liability insurance might not be necessary, although it was recommended for added security.  Balancing the need for safety and practicality was emphasised.  Changes had been made to the process to address conflicts of interest in permissions, ensuring transparency and fairness.

Both the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder spoke about the regulations related to dogs.  Different restrictions were applied based on the location, with specific considerations for sites of special scientific interest and wildlife.  The consultation process had supported these measures.

Regarding the congregation of groups, changes had been made to the wording of restrictions to clarify the criteria for issuing fines.  The aim was to address concerns without overly restricting lawful assembly.  The Leader and Portfolio Holder reiterated the commitment to upholding freedom of speech and the right to assemble.  Exemptions for political, charitable, and religious organisations were noted.  The balance between protecting the rights of individuals and addressing anti-social behaviour had been discussed during the preparation of PSPO.

Substantial evidence was cited as the basis for implementing these measures.  The challenges of enforcing dog fouling regulations were acknowledged, leading to the introduction of fines for not carrying disposal bags.  The need for practical enforcement was emphasised.

Extensions had been granted to accommodate feedback, and efforts had been made to ensure a comprehensive consultation.

The response from representative of the Call-In notice signatories was discussed, with specific attention to the 52 points raised in their submission.  Changes had been made based on this feedback, particularly regarding implementation, exemptions, and specific issues such as dog fouling.

The Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder concluded with a commitment to continue monitoring and reviewing these measures.  Flexibility to adjust and continue to have open dialogues with the signatories was offered by the Leader.  The Leader and Portfolio Holder advised that the main aim was to educate both members of staff and contractors handing out the fines but also the people receiving them.

The Chair thanked the representative of the signatories, the Portfolio Holder and the Leader of the Council for their attendance, participation and responses.

The Sub-Committee adjourned from 8:58 pm to 9:37 pm for deliberations.

RESOLVED:  That the challenge to the decision should be taken no further and the decision be implemented.

Resolved to Recommend:  (to Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

That the implementation of PSPOs be included in their work programme.