The Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety has submitted a report to approve the approach to setting standards of behaviour in the City Centre.

Recommendation:That the City Executive Board resolves to:

1.    Approve a city centre consultation process to determine the standards of acceptable behaviour in the city centre and the acceptability and appropriateness of a City Centre Public Spaces Protection Order for tackling particular behaviours; and

2.    Endorse the use of the Anti-social Behaviour Enforcement Policy to address behaviours in the city centre addressed by the 2016-19 City Centre Public Space Protection Order.

The Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety had submitted a report to approve the approach to setting standards of behaviour in the City Centre.

The Board Member for Safer, Greener, Environment (Councillor Tom Hayes) introduced the report. Prior Scrutiny consideration had focused on whether or not the proposed consultation should take place and, if so, what form it should take. He emphasised that the consultation, focusing on what behaviours were acceptable in the City Centre, would be very wide ranging and inclusive and, therefore, conducted by a number  of different means to ensure maximum engagement. The outcome of this consultation would inform whether a statutory consultation on a PSPO would be undertaken at some point in the future. It was important to be clear from the outset that the Council did not and would not seek to criminalise rough sleeping or homelessness and would speak out against those who did.

The Chair said there was an unwarranted inference by some that those who were homeless were, somehow, necessarily anti-social. The highest incidence of anti-social behavior was associated with drunkenness of people who, for the most part, were not homeless. It was agreed that these proposals should be developed in a way which saw that the interests of homeless people and rough sleepers were properly protected.

It was recognised that the police had an important role in relation to these matters and other ‘low level’ crime but that, with diminished resources, their involvement appeared to be limited. Councillor Hayes said he continued to seek views from the police about these matters.

The Community Safety Service Manager said that PSPOs represented  just one means of tackling inappropriate behaviours and were designed to have a declaratory effect.

The City Executive Board resolved to:

1.    Approve a city centre consultation process to determine the standards of acceptable behaviour in the city centre and the acceptability and appropriateness of a City Centre Public Spaces Protection Order for tackling particular behaviours; and

2.    Endorse the use of the Anti-social Behaviour Enforcement Policy to address behaviours in the city centre addressed by the 2016-19 City Centre Public Space Protection Order.

To consider a report concerning a city centre consultation process to determine the standards of acceptable behaviour and the acceptability and appropriateness of a City Centre Public Spaces Protection Order for tackling particular behaviours. This report will be considered by the City Executive Board on 13 March for decision.

The Committee had before it a report concerning a city centre consultation process to determine the standards of acceptable behaviour and the acceptability and appropriateness of a City Centre Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) for tackling particular behaviours, destined for the City Executive Board on 13 March 2019.

The Chair introduced the item by reminding the Committee that the previous City Centre PSPO had lapsed and this report provided the first step in consideration of the desirability of a new PSPO and the form such an Order might take.

The Board Member for Safer, Greener Oxford,  Councillor Tom Hayes, said the report sought to introduce an additional layer of consultation prior to the introduction of a new PSPO. Before proceeding with a new PSPO it was important to establish a consensus about what the wider community see as acceptable behaviour and the appropriateness of a PSPO for tackling that which is  unacceptable; this is what the proposed consultation sought to achieve.  It was important to be very clear that the possible introduction of a new PSPO did not seek to criminalise rough sleeping.  The Council’s wish to help and support those who are rough sleeping was unambiguous and all steps were taken to encourage rough sleepers to access the services available to them.

Councillor Aziz addressed the Committee, citing examples of homeless people having been victims of extremely anti-social behaviour by others. She argued that all steps should be taken to protect their interests and that consideration should be given to a rough sleepers’ protection policy.

In a wide ranging discussion the following points were raised by the Committee among others:

• An appraisal of people’s views, via the consultation,  of acceptable behaviour was welcome but there was perhaps too much of a focus on a PSPO as a possible means of addressing unacceptable behaviour
• The data provided showed that recourse to the previous PSPO was very infrequent which begged a question about the need for a new one. On the other hand, that it was only necessary to have recourse to the PSPO on  6 occasions out of 1000 was evidence of it being a successful deterrent
• The period now underway without a PSPO in place provided a useful opportunity to see whether its absence was detrimental
• A new PSPO might   however provide a useful tool for the Council to help keep the City safe for all members of the public, in relation to certain behaviours such as the discarding of drug paraphernalia.
• The existence of a PSPO did not sit comfortably alongside the Council’s other multi-disciplinary approaches to supporting and helping those who are homeless or rough sleeping
• It was imperative that a consultation was truly inclusive, gathering the views all those with an interest in the matter
• It would be helpful to have a clearer idea of the police’s role and views about prevention, deterrent and enforcement in this area.
• While it was clear that there was no intention to victimise those who were homeless or rough sleeping,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101