Agenda item

Following introduction by the Cabinet Member for Recycling and Public Protection, the Service Lead: Public Protection then gave a presentation on public space protection orders and enforcement, and several questions were asked, including the following:

1.    Further clarification was sought on the low number of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) served in Winchester, specifically requesting the figures and the time period they covered.

2.    It was explained that four FPNs were served for dog fouling over the previous two years, while none were served for littering or alcohol-related offences.

3.    An enquiry was made as to whether data was available concerning the number of cautions that had been issued by the council or the police.

4.    The officer noted that this information was not immediately available but could be provided, and it was further clarified that data was not currently shared between the police and the council regarding the use of these powers.

5.    A question was asked regarding the risk of further criminalising vulnerable members of the community and whether the use of third-party enforcement agencies would create perverse incentives.

6.    It was clarified that the use of external agencies was only being scoped as an option and was not a definitive proposal at that stage.

7.    Further clarification was sought on how the council could address the issue of begging on the high street, which some residents reportedly found intimidating.

8.    The officer explained that a staged approach involving words of advice was typically used before a fine was issued, and that PSPOs could provide a swifter method for dealing with individuals who moved between different locations.

9.    An enquiry was made as to whether begging was already a criminal offence under existing statutes.

10.The officer noted that while an older act allowed for arrests for begging, it was slated for removal, and the council was exploring whether a PSPO was a more appropriate tool.

11.A request was made for the council to establish a clear evidence base and data recording system to justify the adoption or renewal of these powers.

12.It was confirmed that sufficient data was a legal requirement for the adoption of a PSPO and that specific controls, such as those for the volume of amplified busking, could be built into the orders.

13.Further clarification was sought on whether a district-wide PSPO for dog fouling was already in effect.

14.It was clarified that there was no current PSPO for dog fouling and the council instead relied on the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act.

15.A question was asked regarding whether other individuals, such as Parish Clerks, could be authorised to issue FPNs for dog fouling in their local areas.

16.It was confirmed that the council had the power to authorise other persons to take such action, although it was noted that many parish councils had previously been reluctant to do so.

17.An enquiry was made concerning whether the primary issue was a lack of visible street presence and human resources rather than a requirement for new legislation.

18.A question was raised as to whether committee members believed residents were avoiding the city centre due to anti-social behaviour.

19.Further clarification was sought on the use of alternative tools to address issues such as busking and commercial waste management before committing to a range of PSPOs.

20.An enquiry was made as to whether the proposal involved a single PSPO or multiple orders for different behaviours.

21.It was explained that the preferred model was to have separate PSPOs for specific activities to ensure legal clarity and ease of enforcement.

The questions were responded to by the Cabinet Member, the Corporate Head of Planning and Regulatory Services and the Service Lead: Public Protection.

In conclusion, the committee thanked officers and the Cabinet Member for an informative presentation

RESOLVED:

That the presentation be received and the comments raised by the committee, as summarised above, be noted.