Agenda item - Managing Anti-social Behaviour in City Parks and Open Spaces

Report of Executive Director for Finance & Resources (copy attached).

RESOLVED - That the committee agree to the making of a Public Spaces Protection Order under Section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act and the prohibitions and requirements in the specific areas of the city outlined in this report for the duration three years.

29.1       The Chair noted that there was a deputation associated with this item and called forward Emma Nuttall to speak on behalf of the Friends, Families and Travellers Group.

29.2       Emma Nuttall stated:

“Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) which have recently come in under the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act were never designed to be used against travellers. The guidance references alcohol, dogs and noise but not Gypsies and Travellers. No other local authority in the country has used them against Gypsies and Travellers. If Brighton and Hove City Council introduces it you will be the first Council in the country and this is why the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has sent submissions on the issue because you would potentially be setting a precedent for the rest of the country that they would be very keen to stop.

We went to a meeting with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission yesterday, they are looking for cases of strategic litigation and by strategic litigation they mean interventions in cases where the principles under consideration have a wider impact beyond that of the specific case itself. So given that Brighton & Hove City Council is considering embarking on an approach which has no precedent elsewhere in the country any attempt to use PSPOs as a mechanism for the issue of unauthorised encampments of Gypsies and Travellers would undoubtedly lead to a legal challenge by the equalities and human rights commission and in a time of budget cuts for the Council is this really something which the council wants to embark upon, and I note that in your paperwork the potential from judicial review has been noted by your solicitor as well.

One of the concerns of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and also ourselves is that the introduction of PSPOs would have a disproportionate effect on Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers which are two ethnic minorities protected under equalities legislation and what we are talking about is homeless people. They are encamped on the twelve locations because they have nowhere else to go. They don’t wish to be on those locations a lot of the other traditional stopping places such as Ditchling Road and the Race Course have been ditched, bunded, and gated so they can’t stop on those places. They don’t wish to be gauped at like goldfish in a bowl they need to have sites but the sites are not being provided by Brighton & Hove City Council. I feel that the report which has been given to you by officers doesn’t contain the full information for you to be making a well enough informed decision. For instance there is one point where it says the ‘need for additional sites could be looked at’ or words to that effect. It’s not really the case that it could be looked at there is an identifiable need for an additional thirty two pitches in Brighton and Hove so I think it’s quite misleading where it’s lacking the adequate concrete information. There is a need for 32 more pitches in Brighton and Hove this is why people are stopping on these twelve locations and in the absence of providing those pitches where are people supposed to go? They won’t evaporate they will still exist and the Fairness Commission has just published its report for Brighton and Hove and in that report is the recommendation that negotiated stopping is introduced in Brighton and Hove and negotiated stopping is when a council comes to an agreement with Traveller encampments for a period of stopping time and in Leeds where it is working successfully between the Council and Travellers it has saved thousands of pounds worth of money.

Another relevant issue is that in the last few years Horsdean transit site has been closed and you haven’t had a permanent site. Horsdean site is opening this month with a 12 pitch site and you’ve also got a 21 pitch site opening next to it. This is going to really help towards a solution all the families who have been allocated permanent pitches on the 12 pitch site have lived in Brighton for years and years. They are a lot of the families that are living in unauthorised encampments. When they are living on the sites they will be generating a rent per year of £172,000 from rent as well as additional income from council tax.”

29.3       The Chair thanked Ms Nuttall for attending and noted that her points would be addressed up as part of the questions and discussion on the report.

29.4       The Committee considered a report of the Acting Director of Public Health in relation to Managing Anti-social Behaviour in City Parks and Open Spaces. The purpose of the report was to document progress for managing anti-social behaviour in city parks and open spaces using a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) that was now available using new powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.  The report considered the use of this new power following consultation and a full equality impact assessment in locations where there was reported anti-social behaviour.

29.5       Councillor Mitchell thanked Officers for the work on the report. She emphasised that this legislation was new and it key that very careful consideration be given to its use. The consultation had demonstrated a support for the use of PSPOs, and if the recommendations were agreed by the Committee it would be the task of Officers to ensure they were used proportionately following training for both Officers and Police colleagues, as well as support for individuals that might be affected. The legislation would allow the Council to address anti-social behaviour in parks; in relation to unauthorised encampments this issue would be tackled in conjunction with the new site at Horsdean. It was also added that the unmet need for pitches would be addressed through the development of the City Plan – Part 2.

29.6       In response to questions from Councillor Janio it was explained that the use of PSPOs would give the Council an additional power to address anti-social behaviour above those it and the Police already had. It was also clarified that the Council were mandated to provide travellers sites; however, the legislation was such that there were no powers to compel local authorities to do this.

29.7       In response to Councillor G. Theobald it was clarified that the language in the report ensured the Council had not fettered its discretion. It was also clarified that the Council would still be able to use the powers were the Horsdean site full, so long as the use of PSPOs would be the most effective way to manage a particular situation. The advantage of PSPOs was that use of the legislation sat with the local authority, rather than relying on Police colleagues.

29.8       Councillor Sykes noted that there was existing anti-social behaviour in green spaces in his ward, yet this was not one of the locations in the report where the powers were proposed to be used. He noted his concerns with the detail in the report and of the view the Council did not need to use additional powers above those already at its disposal. He was of the view that PSPOs would be used to target specific groups and highlighted the recent report of the Fairness Commission that had highlighted the gypsy and traveller community as one of the most disadvantaged in the city. The report had no analysis of the use, and problems with, existing powers, nor was any view expressed from the Police. Councillor Sykes concluded by reiterating that he could not support the recommendations and shared concerns that this could breach equalities legislation.

29.9       In response to some of the points raised by Councillor Sykes it was clarified the locations proposed for use of PSPOs in the report had been determined through collating reported and recorded anti-social behaviour. The concerns in relation to equalities had been recognised in the report. The Police were prepared to work with the Council in relation to the use of PSPOs, and part of the decision making around enforcement would be capacity. Further information in relation to the use other legislation to manage unauthorised encampments was available.

29.10    Councillor Wealls congratulated the administration for bringing forward the report and highlighted some of the problems in his own ward. It was clarified that before any powers were used an investigation would take place to look at welfare matters; following satisfaction of that criteria a time frame to leave would be issued, if this were not adhered to then the Council would look to work with the Police to enforce.

29.11    Councillor Janio welcomed the report, but expressed his concern that this would still not provide a framework for enforcement to happen quickly enough.

29.12    Councillor A. Norman thanked Officers for the report, and highlighted that she understood the needs of the travelling community, in particular in relation to access for education. She highlighted particular issues at a location within her Ward and noted that the situation had become so bad that the local volunteer group that helped to maintain the land were considering disbanding as they felt powerless to address the ongoing problems. She noted she was in support of the recommendations in the report.

29.13    Councillor Mac Cafferty highlighted the language used in the report in the representation from Liberty and he made reference to the recommendation in the Farness Commission report in relation to stopping places – arguing that this would create a stronger basis to protect open spaces. He was of the view that the proposed action in the report was too hasty, given the recommendations from the Fairness Commission.

29.14    The Chair echoed the comments made by Councillor Mitchell in relation to the unmet need being addressed through the City Plan Part 2, he went on to add that it was crucial the Council take a balanced approach. The Chair then put the recommendations to the vote.

29.15    RESOLVED – That the Committee note the deputation.

29.16    The recommendations in the report were agreed with 8 support and 2 against

29.17    RESOLVED - That the committee agree to the making of a Public Spaces Protection Order under Section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act and the prohibitions and requirements in the specific areas of the city outlined in this report for the duration three years.