The Strategic Director, Place will present a report (Document “AL”) which provides a summary of the responses from the statutory consultation on the proposed Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for Bradford District and submission of the proposed Order for this Committee’s approval.

Recommended –

(1)     That the proposed Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) be approved.

(2)     That the Strategic Director, Place be authorised to take all necessary actions to implement and make the PSPO operational.

                                                            (Rebecca Trueman – 01274 431364)

The Strategic Director, Place presented a report (Document “AL”) which provided a summary of the responses from the statutory consultation on the proposed Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for Bradford District and submission of the proposed Order for approval.

The Strategic Director, Place stated that a previous report had been considered at the meeting held on 4 October 2018 and a consultation process had been undertaken that had resulted in 1260 responses being submitted. 

In considering the information, Members raised questions and were informed that:

·         The Act had to be interpreted in as reasonable way as possible and the issuing of a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) should be based upon previous behaviour.  If there was no real reason to believe the PSPO had been breached, then a FPN should not be issued.

·         The police would rely upon the discretion of those enforcing the PSPO and a reasonable view of the previous behaviour would have to be taken.  FPNs should not be issued at random.

·         The PSPO would be enforced by the Council and the police under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-social Behaviour (ASB), Crime and Policing Act 2014 dealt with ASB.  The PSPO would be subject to a review by the Committee and there would be a period of training between now and the implementation.

·         Noise nuisance could be prosecuted by the Council’s Environmental Health Unit and the PSPO would be an extra power.  There would have to be an evaluation of the noise evidence and the Environmental Health Unit were the lead in the assessment of noise nuisance.  The assessment of evidence of noise nuisance would be passed on by the public to the police and Council in writing or by verbal complaint.  A formal Criminal Justice Act written statement would also be required.

·         It had become evident that the issue of nuisance driving was a real concern for the residents of Bradford and the consultation results had confirmed this.  Driving and the safety of people in the community was a concern and a combination of legislation could be used to address it.  

·         ASB orders could be applied for in circumstances where a person’s behaviour was persistent and repetitive.  The enforcement of a breach of a PSPO could be undertaken in a more cost effective way than an ASB order by issuing a FPN, which was a much quicker route to obtain an effective remedy to low level ASB.    

·         The police had powers to deal with parked vehicles and the Council had existing powers.  The police could also deal with moving vehicles, however, roadside enforcement via a FPN for a breach of the PSPO was a criminal offence.

·         The PSPO was only part of the work being undertaken and dealt with the gaps that other Acts did not cover.

·         The information provided by a complainant had to be sufficient in order to permit the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) to release the details of a vehicle’s registered keeper.  The wording of the proposed PSPO gave powers to the Council and police to give notice to the registered keeper and if there was reasonable belief that the keeper had not been able to control the driver at that point in time, then action against the driver would be pursued rather than the registered keeper.

·         Dangerous driving that had been noted by the public could be a starting point for the PSPO process.

·         The areas to be covered by the PSPO had been raised at the meeting held in October.  It would have been possible to separate the District into locations, however, the public had been made aware that it should be a District wide Order and approximately 76% were in favour of this approach.  The edges of areas would cause enforcement problems, therefore, on balance it would be preferable to have a District wide approach that would be easier to enforce.    

·         Enforcement issues would be created if the PSPO was separated into areas and the views of the public in specific areas were a concern.  A far better service would be delivered if the PSPO was District wide.

·         The PSPO would be one intervention within a whole raft of issues. It was an effective tool and other Local Authorities that used the Order had noted a significant change in behaviour.  There were a number of checks and balances in place before a Notice would be issued and those responsible would be trusted to exercise professional discretion.

·         The draft PSPO (in the way it was worded) included and strengthened the issue of dealing with the use of quad bikes off road.  Young people were known to drive them but they were not always the registered keeper and if the name of the driver was not reported then the keeper would have to pay the fine.  Young people (but not first offenders who should be warned) could be issued a FPN and it would be enforceable.  Overall the PSPO would strengthen the position of the Council and police, however, other legislation, i.e. ASB orders, would be considered if the person was a persistent offender.

·         The PSPO would be reviewed within three years and a report submitted to the Committee, however, the review was not obligatory.

·         Those enforcing the PSPO would act upon discretion as set out in the Policies, Council’s Guidance and training documents.

·         The PSPO would be good news for Bradford and could tackle the issues that were of concern.  Other ASB legislation would be able to be used.

·         If approved, the PSPO would come into effect in June 2019. 

During the discussion a Member expressed concerns in relation to the process and indicated that he did not believe that the Order was necessary.  Another Member raised issues in relation to the consultation and requested that the review covered both the advantages and disadvantages.  

Resolved –

(1)     That the proposed Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) be approved.

(2)     That the Strategic Director, Place be authorised to take all necessary actions to implement and make the PSPO operational.

(3)     That prior to the expiration of the PSPO in three years time, a report that includes the results of the consultation and review be submitted to the Committee.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Place