Cllr Simmons, Chair of the Scrutiny Committee presented the Scrutiny Committee report. The committee was happy with the powers enacted by the Council but would like to see Scrutiny representation on the oversight group and continued engagement with Area Forums regarding future applications.

Cllr Sinclair, Board member for Crime and Community Response agreed with the recommendations. She suggested 1 member of the Scrutiny Committee join the oversee group. The group is meeting soon to discuss the proposed City Centre protection order.

The City Executive Board resolved to AGREE:

1. That a Scrutiny Councillor is included in the membership of the oversight group.

2. That City Council officers engage with Local Area Forums regarding the application of new anti-social behaviour powers.

Contact Officer: Richard Adams

Tel 01865 252283

Email: radams@oxford.gov.uk

The Anti-Social Behaviour Investigation Team Manager presented the report (previously circulated, now appended) on Public Protection Orders and explained the new powers Council has enacted to discourage anti-social behaviour.

Dee Sinclair, Board member for Crime and Community Response said that the Anti-Social behaviour team were currently reviewing the need for a city centre alcohol ban.

The following comments were made:

The Council keeps the money from any fines but legislation restricts the amount of the fine can be.

Is it possible to have a city wide protection order for dog fouling for example? The legislation requires protection orders to be proportionate and reasonable.  Council is required to prove there is a need for a protection order through public consultation. It would be difficult to prove that every part of the city requires a city-wide dog fouling order.

Protection orders are required to be reviewed every 3 years.

Officers work closely with Police to share information.

The Executive Director for Community Services has been delegated authority to agree PSPOs for small areas of the city such as NAG areas.  All other PSPOs will be decided by CEB.

The Committee made the following recommendations:

To CEB

That a scrutiny member sits on the oversight group.

That officers consult with area forums about these new powers.

To officers

Make information made available to councillors by putting it on the members’ page on the intranet.

Requested that officers present an update report to the Scrutiny Committee in 6 months’ time.

The Head of Environmental Development has submitted a report to advise on the introduction of Public Spaces Protection Orders and their future implementation.

Officer Recommendations: That the City Executive Board:

1. Resolve that the making of Public Spaces Protection Orders that affect multiple neighbourhood action area or the city centre and have a significant impact on anti-social behaviour across the city be reserved to the Board  and that the Executive scheme of delegation be amended accordingly.

2. Delegate to the Executive Director Community Services authority, following appropriate consultation to include the relevant CEB member and ward councillors, to adopt and publish Public Spaces Protection Orders where the area covered by the proposed Order is wholly within a neighbourhood action group (NAG) area or is confined to the vicinity of the banks of waterways within the city and subject to the statutory requirements for the making of an Order being satisfied.

The Head of Environmental Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which advised on the introduction of Public Spaces Protection Orders and their future implementation.

Cllr Sinclair, Board Member for Crime and Community Safety presented the report. She explained that protection orders give the Council the power to prohibit anti-social behaviour in designated areas for up to three years.

Cllr Brown warned about the perils of trying to stop a behaviour in one locality, as it often only pushed the undesirable behaviour outside of the area where it can’t be enforced.

Cllr Hollick urged the Board not to adopt the powers. He felt the powers were too broad and there were not adequate safeguarding measures in place to protect individuals from being unfairly targeted ie the homeless.

The Executive Director of Community Services stated they were modelled on the Police’s dispersal orders that are pretty sparingly used.

Cllr Sinclair gave assurances that they would be reviewed on a regular basis.

The City Executive Board resolved:

1. That the making of Public Spaces Protection Orders that affect multiple neighbourhood action area or the city centre and have a significant impact on anti-social behaviour across the city be reserved to the Board and that the Executive scheme of delegation be amended accordingly.

2. Delegate to the Executive Director of Community Services authority, following appropriate consultation to include the relevant CEB member and ward councillors, to adopt and publish Public Spaces Protection Orders where the area covered by the proposed Order is wholly within a neighbourhood action group (NAG) area or is confined to the vicinity of the banks of waterways within the city and subject to the statutory requirements for the making of an Order being satisfied.