The Executive Director Sustainable City has submitted a report which details the findings of the review into the application of antisocial behaviour enforcement, with particular reference to people thought to be rough sleeping, and to review the Council’s underpinning enforcement policies.

Recommendations:

That the City Executive Board resolves to:

1.          Endorse the report, including the findings of the Community Protection Notice Review and Cross-Party Panel; and

2.          Authorise the Head of Community Services, in consultation with the Board Member for Community Safety, to update the Antisocial Behaviour Policy and Antisocial Behaviour Procedures in line with the recommendations made.

The Executive Director Sustainable City had submitted a report which detailed the findings of the review into the application of antisocial behaviour enforcement, with particular reference to people thought to be rough sleeping, and to review the Council’s underpinning enforcement policies.

Cllr Hayes, Board Member for Community Safety reminded the Board that the report resulted from a Council motion in October 2017 requesting the CEB to review the process of issuing Community Protection Notices. A senior officer review of the 5 cases in 2016 and 2017 against rough sleepers found that in all cases the Council’s policies in respect of these matters had been followed appropriately. The report before the Board had been preceded by cross-party talks. He was pleased that Scrutiny Committee had accepted the report and had been pleased to respond positively to its two recommendations. He went on to reaffirm the Council’s absolute commitment, as a caring and compassionate authority,  never to act in a punitive way against people by simple virtue of the fact of  their being either homeless or rough sleepers.

Cllr Rowley, Board Member for Housing, echoed the comments of Cllr Hayes and drew attention to the fact that the Council’s approach required officers to take the lowest form of intervention possible when dealing with such cases.

Cllr Price, Board Member for Corporate Strategy and Economic Development

 Thought this was a good and thorough report but it would be helpful to see greater clarity about when the recommendations would  be taken  forward and completed by and that Members should have the opportunity to engage with the subsequent proposals. Cllr Hayes confirmed that there would be such opportunities and the Executive Director for the Sustainable City confirmed that the necessary work was already well underway.

The City Executive Board resolved to:

1.         Endorse the report, including the findings of the Community Protection Notice Review and Cross-Party Panel; and

2.         Authorise the Head of Community Services, in consultation with the Board Member for Community Safety, to update the Antisocial Behaviour Policy and Antisocial Behaviour Procedures in line with the recommendations made.

Councillor Wade addressed the Committee and asked for the report to be re-drafted before being presented to the City Executive Board.  She said that the findings and recommendations of the cross-party panel meeting described in the report did not reflect the views expressed by herself and Councillors Gant and Thomas at the meeting they attended on 29 January 2018.

Councillors Gant and Thomas re-iterated the points made by Councillor Wade.

In conclusion Councillor Wade asked the Committee and the Board Member for Community Safety to consider the following points which she, Councillor Gant and Councillor Thomas believed should be in place before CPN proceedings were started:

a.     There should be documented evidence of attempts to engage the individual and an assessment of his/her vulnerability to legal process.

b.     There should be a formal Protocol agreed by Legal setting out the process to be followed in each case under the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.

c.     There should always be a written legal advice on file.

d.     The process should be authorised in each case by the Head of Service and the Head of Law and Governance – and there should be no time limit on this requirement.

In response the Board Member for Community Safety said that he could agree point a) as it reflected current practice; that point b) was agreeable in relation to complex cases; but  that he had reservations about accepting points c) and d) due to practical and operational considerations. 

The Board Member for Community Safety and the Executive Director for Sustainable City said that the content of the report was based on the conclusions of an earlier cross-party meeting attended by members from the controlling political group and the independent member.  The minutes of that meeting could be made available.  They acknowledged that the report did not take account of the views expressed by Councillors Wade, Gant and Thomas at the meeting held on 29 January 2018.

The Board Member for Community Safety, the Executive Director for Sustainable City and the Community Safety & Resilience Manager then presented the report and answered questions from members of the Committee.

The Community Safety & Resilience Manager explained that legal advice was sought for all complex cases but that the volume of enforcement activity meant that it would not be practical or necessary to provide written legal advice for all cases.

In discussion the Committee considered the nature of the needs and problems in the city that CPNs could be used to address and the extent of checks and balances in the process for issuing CPNs. 

The Committee also noted that a legal opinion had been obtained by Councillor Thomas which, while it could not have been based on the full facts of any specific case the Council had dealt with, would be considered as part of the subsequent review of the Anti-social Behaviour Policy and the Anti-social Behaviours Procedures.

Members of the Committee suggested that any future informal meetings involving members from beyond any one political group  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79