Decision details

Councillor Poole, as Cabinet Member for Regulatory Functions introduced a report on this matter by saying that public space protection orders were new measures brought in 2014 to allow councils to control anti-social behaviour in a particular public location. They were designed to prevent individuals or groups committing anti-social behaviour where that behaviour is persistent and unreasonable and is having, or is likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality.

 

An alcohol exclusion zone in the city centre had been in place for some 12 years, but the introduction of these new powers had provided an opportunity to review and consider putting in place a new PSPO to counter other forms of persistent and detrimental behaviour.

 

Scrutiny had been asked to oversee public consultation on the issue, consider what responses came in and then to make recommendations to the Cabinet Member as to what measures they would want to see in a new Order.

 

The Cabinet Member stated he had considered Scrutiny’s recommendations and also evidence and concerns from the police, the public, and businesses and from council officers and partner agencies, including those involved with housing needs and supporting people.

 

He was mindful of the importance of striking the right balance between protecting the public and respecting civil liberties and freedom of expression and movement. To this end he recognised the success of the Council’s current housing and homelessness policies, and considered that existing anti-social powers were more appropriate than an outright ban in relation to rough sleeping and begging.

 

He recommended a version of the Order that did not carry a ‘No rough sleeping ‘measure and in which the “No Begging” measure was replaced by the following: “No person shall beg in a manner which is aggressive or intimidating, or which harasses members of the public.”

 

Councillor M Evans moved an amendment to support the original recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee to the Cabinet Member which suggested that the Order should include the “No Begging” measure and the ‘No rough sleeping’ measure. This amendment was seconded by Councillor Fouweather

 

In moving the amendment, Councillor Evans stated that the £1,000 fine referred to in the media would be a final measure. He sated this was not an assault on the homeless but that no-one should be sleeping rough or begging on the streets. Councillor Evans stated that some people have to go to work in fear and can witness excrement, vomit and discarded needles. Councillor Evans had recently been on patrol with the police and had viewed the extent of these problems. Business people had said that needles on the floor were unacceptable. People needed support but so did the businesses. A lot of charities did not support begging as often any donations made in the street were used to feed habits and not for food . The Olive Branch was offering food for 50p per day. He considered the Order as recommended by Scrutiny to the Cabinet Member would provide additional powers to the police to deal with issues. Many people felt intimidated. Councillor Evans stated there was a need to work with agencies to help people but we also needed to help business and residents.

 

 

Councillors Fouweather, Ferris, Al Nuaimi, Atwell spoke in favour of the amendment for reasons including:

 

·         Not all rough sleepers were beggars but it would be difficult for police to manage the issues of aggressive begging without a total ban

·         There was no need for anyone to bring a dog to the city centre other than guide dogs

·         People on pushbikes in pedestrian areas also need to be addressed

·         Those in the grip of heroin addiction which was leading to criminal activity and damage was the main issue

·         Some 90% of respondents agreed with the rough sleeping part of the Order

·         The paraphernalia left by rough sleepers created problems

·         Local people were worried about the extent of needles discarded in the City Centre

·         There is a need to consider the needs of people who live and work in the city

·         The amendment would provide clarity for the police in dealing with issues

·         The City Centre needs to be safe and secure

 

Councillors Townsend, Bond, Cockeram, Whitcutt, Mudd, Truman, Whitehead spoke against the amendment making points such as:

 

·         Some 400 people had responded to the consultation but part of the consultation was ambiguous and the document had been challenged owing to the way it was worded

·         Some 3000 signatures had been put to a separate document which expressed a different view about rough sleepers

·         It would be difficult for the police to discover if a reasonable offer of accommodation had been made and so to enforce the ban on rough sleepers

·         The Council has an opportunity to work with the police on the definitions within the Order

·         There are relatively small number of rough sleepers in Newport

·         The Council needs to show compassion to vulnerable people.

·         We have problems of homelessness and we cannot ‘ban’ poverty in the city

·         This did not mean that antisocial behaviour would be tolerated

·         People should not be discriminated against because they did not have a roof over their head

·         Some people on the streets were suffering issues other than drug addiction or alcoholism.

·         Some of the use of doorways as a toilet was down to late night revellers

·         There was a need to discuss measures with those affected to let them know what was available.

·         The police have sufficient powers now to deal with anti-social behaviour or criminal activities under existing legislation

·         Legislation required proportionality in addressing these issues

·         We should not criminalise the most vulnerable people in society

·         Earlier today the Council had pledged support for vulnerable people supported by the Supporting People Grant

 

Councillor Maxfield remained uncertain and was worried about inertia in helping people on the streets. She welcomed the conversation which could lead to help being provided. Councillor C Evans considered efforts should be made to deal with the problem rather than to introduce an Order. Councillor Ali considered that if an Order was prepared for the City Centre, others would be needed for other areas of the city such as Pill.

 

It was confirmed that there was no mention of A Boards in the Order nor was there mention of distribution of leaflets

 

The required number of members called for a recorded vote. The vote was as follows:

 

Those in favour of the amendment: Councillors M Al Nuaimi, D Atwell, M Cornelious, M Evans, C Ferris, D Fouweather, M Kellaway, R Mogford, R White, and D Williams.  A total of 10 votes

 

Those against: Councillors O Ali; T Bond; R Bright; P Cockeram; E Corten; K Critchley; D Davies; V Delahaye; C Evans; E Garland; G Giles; J Guy; D Harvey : P Huntley; R Jeavons; C Jenkins; M Linton; D Mayer; S Mlewa, J  Mudd; R Poole; M Rahman; J Richards; M Spencer; C Suller; H Thomas; K  Thomas; E Townsend; R Truman; T Watkins; M Whitcutt; and  D Wilcox . A total of 32 votes

 

Members who abstained: C Maxfield and K Whitehead- a total of 2 members

 

The amendment was therefore lost

 

Councillor M Evans moved an alternative amendment which suggested that the Order should include the original “No Begging” measure but remove the “rough sleeping” measure. This amendment was seconded by Councillor Fouweather

 

Councillor Evans said that it was very much Police advice  to include the begging clause as it provided a clear message. He considered that people did not need to beg. A lot of people feel they have to give money and this is a concern. They should be directed to help and support but ensure that no begging is carried out. In summing up he mentioned that begging was often not for food but to feed a habit that needs to be addressed.

 

Councillors Garland, Maxfield spoke in favour of the amendment. Both gave examples of aggressive begging they had witnessed. Councillor Fouweather considered the option put by the Cabinet Member took options away from the police and this would provide clear guidance.

 

Councillors Bond, Jeavons, Mlewa and Whitcutt spoke against the amendment. The issues relating to penalising people for poverty were raised. Issues relating to buskers were also discussed. The ‘no begging’  inclusion would raise issues of ambiguity. It was considered this would not add to existing legislation. It was unacceptable to say that begging was unnecessary. Fines could not be paid by vulnerable people.

 

The required number of members called for a recorded vote. The vote was as follows:

 

Those in favour of the amendment: Councillors D Atwell, M Cornelious, E Corten; M Evans, E Garland, C Ferris, D Fouweather, M Kellaway, C Maxfield , R Mogford, R White and D Williams . A total of 12 votes

 

Those against: Councillors O Ali; T Bond; R Bright; P Cockeram; K Critchley; D Davies; V Delahaye; C Evans; G Giles; J Guy; D Harvey : P Huntley; R Jeavons; C Jenkins; M Linton; D Mayer; S Mlewa, J Mudd; R Poole; M Rahman; J Richards; M Spencer; C Suller; H Thomas; K  Thomas; E Townsend; R Truman; T Watkins; M Whitcutt; and  D Wilcox . A total of 30 votes

 

Members who abstained: Al Nuaimi, and K Whitehead- a total of 2 members

 

The amendment was therefore lost

 

Councillor Townsend moved a further amendment that the Council adopts an alternative option

 

“To approve the Order BUT to replicate ONLY the existing city centre designated public place order (alcohol exclusion zone) (Measure 1), but extend the boundary to that set out in the map at Appendix G and remit the other proposed measures back for further consideration as to what to include in a future city centre PSPO.”

 

Councillor Townsend sated that this acknowledged the discussions earlier that the necessary powers were already available

 

This was seconded by Councillor Whitehead

 

Councillor Al Nuaimi spoke against the proposed amendment stating that the Order needed to help police do the job they want to do.

 

The vote was put to the Council and the amendment was lost

 

The substantive motion put by the Cabinet Member was then considered and voted upon

 

The required number of members called for a recorded vote. The vote was as follows:

 

Members voting for the motion were: O Ali; D Atwell; T Bond; R Bright; P Cockeram; M Cornelious; E Corten; K Critchley; D Davies; V Delahaye; C Evans; M Evans; C Ferris; D Fouweather; E Garland; G Giles; J Guy; D Harvey : P Huntley; R Jeavons; C Jenkins; M Kellaway; M Linton; C Maxfield; D Mayer; S Mlewa; R Mogford; J Mudd; R Poole; M Rahman; J Richards; M Spencer; C Suller; H Thomas; K  Thomas; E Townsend; R Truman; T Watkins; M Whitcutt; R White; and D Wilcox. A total of 41 votes

 

No members voted against the motion

 

Three members abstained: Councillors Al Nuaimi, Whitehead and Williams.

 

Resolved:

 

To adopt version 2 of the Order as set out in the report and as recommended by the Cabinet Member for Regulatory Services