Contact Officer: Richard Adams, Service Manager Environmental Protection   Tel 01865 252283, radams@oxford.gov.uk

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee explained that he had called in the CEB decision to approve the introduction of a City Centre Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) because he was concerned that the information raised by the University of Oxford and Liberty had not been fully considered.  He asked the Committee to limit their discussion to the following issues:

·         The University of Oxford proposal that their land be excluded from the City Centre PSPO

·         the three points raised by Liberty in their letter dated 9 October 2015:

­   insufficient evidence of detrimental effect

­   insufficient consideration of alternative and/or existing measures

­   disproportionate breadth of PSPO terms

·         the proposed use of Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs)

The Committee & Member Services Manager advised the Committee that it was required to review the City Executive Board decision in light of the call-in representations and, on a majority, decide to:

1.      support the decision, which can then be acted on immediately; or

2.      refer the decision back, with comments, to the City Executive Board to take a final decision.

The Chair of the City Centre PSPO Scrutiny Panel said that he supported the call-in as he was concerned that the Panel had not been in a position to fully scrutinise the City Centre PSPO and take account of the matters raised by the University of Oxford and Liberty.  He acknowledged that the Head of Law & Governance and the Community Safety & Resilience Manager had kept the Panel informed of developments but felt that the role of the Panel had been constrained.

The Community Safety & Resilience Manager briefed the Committee on the key stages of the consultation process highlighting the fact that the general letter to University addresses had been supplemented by a targeted letter to University Bursars and by discussions with the University security services. 

The Committee acknowledged that in retrospect it would have been better to send the consultation letter to the Director of Estates at the University of Oxford for internal dissemination. They also felt that the content of the letter could have been clearer about the implications of the proposed PSPO for the landowner.The Committee then considered the arguments for and against amending the boundaries of the City Centre PSPO, having particular regard to the likelihood that more restrictive boundaries would lead to displacement of the anti-social behaviours.

The Director of Community Services said that he had met with a representative from the University Estates team who had confirmed their wish for the University land to be excluded from the City Centre PSPO, despite the risk of displacement of activities from the city centre. 

The Committee considered a proposal to change the boundaries of the City Centre PSPO to remove Oxford University land.  This proposal was not agreed by the full Committee or by a majority:

·         5 in favour of changing the boundaries of the City Centre PSPO

·         7 not in favour of changing the boundaries of the City Centre PSPO

Cllr Thomas raised a number of concerns about the proposed use of Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs), in particular that

·         CBO's were only mentioned at a very late stage in the debate without the opportunity to scrutinise

• the Council already has the power to request CBO's and has had numerous opportunities to deploy
• CBO's were very unlikely, based on academic research, to achieve the stated aim of moving people towards services and were consequently a high risk strategy
• CBO can only be issued once an individual has been prosecuted

The Head of Law and Governance acknowledged the points made by Cllr Thomas.  He said that the City Centre PSPO was intended to set minimum standards of behaviour in the city centre.  He reiterated the advice he had given to the City Executive Board explaining that although the preferred approach would be to direct people towards support services it had to be recognised that the PSPO also provided the Council with the powers to take enforcement action when necessary.

The Chair of the City Centre PSPO Panel observed that, in deciding to approve the introduction of the City Centre PSPO, the City Executive Board had been fully apprised of the issues raised by Liberty and of the corresponding legal advice from the Head of Law and Governance. 

The Committee considered a proposal to refer the City Centre PSPO back to the City Executive Board to reconsider the issues raised in the 9 October letter from Liberty and the proposed use of CBOs.  This proposal was not agreed by the full Committee or by a majority:

·         3 in favour of referring the PSPO back to the City Executive Board

·         9 not in favour of referring the PSPO back to the City Executive Board

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee thanked the Board Member and officers for their time and said that the City Executive Board decision to introduce the City Centre PSPO was confirmed.