The Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety has submitted a report to seek approval of the reviewed Anti-social Behaviour Policy 2022-25.

Cabinet is recommended to:

1.    Approve the Anti-social Behaviour Policy

The Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety had submitted a report to seek approval of the reviewed Anti-social Behaviour Policy 2022-25.

Councillor Louise Upton, Cabinet Member for a Safer, Healthier Oxford, introduced the report, observing that anti-social behaviour (ASB) could blight people’s lives and the City Council had a responsibility to deal with it. While this responsibility was shared with partners, the policy and procedure before Cabinet were the Council’s own.  The policy and procedure set out what the Council could do in response to concerns about ASB and, as importantly, what it could not. Central to the Council’s approach was recognition of the need to look at the source of ASB as well as addressing its consequences.  This often meant identifying and if possible addressing the needs of those demonstrating ASB.

Richard Adams, Community Safety Service Manager, said the key changes to this most recent review were to emphasise the primacy of safeguarding and to incorporate lessons learnt in relation to vexatious complaints.

The Chair noted how much this policy and procedure were valued by Councillors in their day to day constituency work and paid tribute to the work of the Community Safety Service Manager and his team.

Cabinet resolved to:

1.    Approve the Anti-social Behaviour Policy.

Cabinet, at its meeting on 10 November, will consider a report on the Anti-Social Behaviour Policy. The Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations thereon.

Cllr Louise Upton, Cabinet Member for a Safer Healthy Oxford and Richard Adams, Community Safety Manager,have been invited to attend for this item. 

Cllr Louise Upton, Cabinet Member for a Safer Healthy Oxford introduced the report, noting that anti-social behaviour (ASB) could blight lives if unchecked and the Council had a responsibility to challenge it both in relation to its own housing stock as well as the wider community. This was a responsibility carried out in close partnership with other agencies. The policy set out what the Council could do and, as importantly, what it could not. It also set out what complainants might expect and was expected of complainants. ASB often had its root causes in deep seated difficulties for those involved and officers were trained to take proper account of that and to respond accordingly.

Richard Adams, Community Safety Service Manager, said the Council had a statutory duty to provide a policy, to review it regularly and to investigate certain matters. The Council played a leading role in addressing ASB as a Responsible Authority of the Community Safety Partnership in the City, notably but not exclusively in relation to Council property and its tenants. The last 18 months had seen a sharp decline in the incidence of ASB but as Covid restrictions had eased, so the incidence had increased and was now at a higher level than pre-pandemic. While there was an unequivocal responsibility to deal with ASB in Council properties there was no equivalent responsibility in relation to private rented property, however this was not to say that the Council would not offer  appropriate support in such cases as, indeed, it often did. He noted that complaints about noise was one matter which the Council was bound to investigate irrespective of its source (subject to the limitations set out in the policy). The ASB team, through its partnership working, connected with a host of programmes, initiatives and activities to address the challenges and behaviours that may be experienced by those exhibiting ASB. The covering report and the policy itself avoided explicit references to them however as they were so many and various. 

The Committee made a number of detailed observations and suggestions. One of  the five core principles referred to anti-social behaviour being “...addressed firmly, fairly and proportionally”, it was agreed that this could be expanded to include “holistically.” Another principle referred to “…high quality customer service.” It was agreed that this could be changed to “...delivering a high quality service for citizens.”

The collection of evidence in support of complaints was a sensitive matter. The council did not employ covert means that require Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act authority and did not ask residents to do so. Gathering data in relation to noise complaints was however straightforward, was not invasive and could be straightforwardly achieved with help from the Council if needed.

The list of circumstances under which the Council  would not investigate a complaint included “Alcohol consumption in a public space that is not causing anti-social behaviour and noise from late night revellers”. It was explained that this was intended to apply to occasional and fleeting incidents in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63