Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood & Environmental Services will deliver an update on the progress of Public Space Protection Orders.

The Director of Neighbourhood & Environmental Services will deliver an update on the progress of Public Space Protection Orders.

The Deputy City Mayor, Housing, Economy and Neighbourhoods, introduced the item.

• She explained that the Community Safety team led the PSPO consultation, while the political messaging was managed by the City Mayor. The PSPO, which formed part of the Heart of Leicester action plan, already had a significant impact on the City Centre and had contributed considerably to safer streets. However, she clarified that the purpose was to engage and educate members of the public, rather than to be punitive. The issuance of fines was intended primarily as a deterrent.
• The Deputy City Mayor further highlighted the partnership work undertaken in collaboration with the Police to ensure the success of the PSPO, including Operation Pedal Fast - an operation targeting the seizure of illegal bikes and scooters. She noted that by dispersing these behaviours in the City Centre, the Council was better positioned to focus on individuals who require support, such as those leading a street lifestyle despite having an active tenancy.

The Head of Safer Communities elaborated further on the report, stating that the PSPO went into effect in April and focused on the City Centre. She outlined the timelines of events from the education campaign to the Operation Pedal fast and the engagement of businesses, all of which complemented the PSPO. It was noted that:

·       The PSPO covered offences relating to loitering and begging, microphones, loudspeakers, temporary structures, e-bikes (and other offences detailed in the presentation).

·       The target hours of work were 8 Staff per day, split between the City Wardens and the Community Safety team.

·       Thirty-eight signs had been installed at specified locations, alongside digital displays in April. There were plans to do this again for education and public awareness throughout the city.

·       Since the PSPO came into force, three FPNs had been issued, a relatively low number compared to the level of engagement. This underlined the fact that the priority was engagement. However, there were challenges with issuing FPNS, including threatening behaviours, refusal to provide details, and lack of support from the police.

·       There was a high risk of intoxication, but the team was also proactive in removing alcohol from people under the powers granted by the PSPO. Some individuals were also referred to outreach services.

·       Opposition from preacher groups regarding the amplification aspect of the PSPO had also posed some challenges. It was, however, important to emphasise that the robust system governing protests and campaigns remained in place, and the intention was not to hinder any of these activities. Plans were underway to meet again with a religious group, following an initial meeting, to ensure sustained engagement.

·       Press coverage had been generally positive.

Members commended the PSPO but expressed concerns that it might potentially stifle activities in the City Centre. In response to questions and concerns, the following points were made:

·       Oversight was in place for the implementation of the PSPO, and contrary to the concerns about suppressing activities, its purpose was to open up the City Centre in a regulated manner. Accordingly, the PSPO focused on amplification, rather than the total cessation of certain activities.

·       To further reinvigorate the City Centre, a busking programme was being considered by the Festival Team, to sustain the environment that had been created by the PSPO.

·       City Wardens were temporarily redeployed from their wards, with executiveapproval, to embed the PSPO in the City Centre. However, the team had identified that the use of City Wardens was not sustainable in the long term, and they were expected to return to their posts in July. Potential changes in future management were anticipated.

·       When unable to issue FPNs due to threatening behaviours, the mandate of staff was to step away for their safety. However, staff could record incidents and report them to the Police for follow-up.

·       Regarding concerns that ASB might have shifted from the City Centre to other parts of the city, it was acknowledged that dispersing encampments carried the risk of individuals relocating elsewhere. However, this also provided opportunities to continue engagement, discouragement, and support to help people move away from such behaviours.

Members expressed a desire to see the scheme expanded beyond the City Centre while requesting increased vigilance to ensure that the PSPO does not exceed its remit or unduly restrict the public’s freedom of expression.

AGREED:

1) That the presentation be noted.

2) That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account.

3) That a follow up update to be presented at a future meeting.