Meeting documents

Any changes will be reported at the meeting.

There were none.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2016 attached as Appendix A.

RESOLVED –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2016 be approved as a correct record.

To consider the report attached as Appendix B

Contact Officer: Peter Seal 01296 585083

In October 2014, the Secretary of  State enacted new powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) to tackle anti-social behaviour. The new powers made changes to some existing legislation and the Council was required, within a period of 3 years to reconsider its Designated Public Place Orders (DPPOs) and either withdraw or replace them with the new Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs).

Although there were numerous DPPOs within the district that would need reconsidering at some point only the DPPO serving Aylesbury town centre was being considered at this time. The Aylesbury town centre DPPO had been introduced in 2002 and allowed either a Police Constable or PCSO to stop people drinking alcohol or surrender any containers of alcohol in a public place.

Although the Aylesbury town centre DPPO had been effective in mitigating public drinking, the issues it was designed to tackle had not been resolved. In addition other anti-social behaviours that occurred in the town centre needed addressing.

The PSPOs were more flexible and allowed authorities to apply them to a much broader range of issues and also allowed authorities the ability to design and implement their own prohibitions or requirements providing certain conditions were met. These were:-

The first condition was that  –

a)    Activities carried on in a public place within the Authority’s area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or

b)    It is likely that activities will be carried on in a public space within that area and that they will have such effect.

The second condition was that the effect, or likely effect of the activities –

a)    Is, or is likely to be of a persistent or continuing nature,

b)    Is, or is likely to be such as to make the activities unreasonable, and

c)    Justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.

Activities can include things that a person or a group does, has done or should do (in order to reduce the detrimental effect).

A PSPO could vary in the length of time it covered (up to a period of three years) and the extent or range of issues covered. A more comprehensive description of a PSPO was given in the officer’s report to the committee. Failure to comply with a prohibition or requirement within the order would be an offence and a defendant could face a fine of up to £1000 in the Magistrate’s Court. Breaches of the order could also be discharged by the use of a fixed penalty order.

The Act was not overly prescriptive about the process required for application of its powers and it had therefore been necessary to design a process that was considered appropriate and suitably robust.

AVDC was required to consult with the Chief of Police, the Police and Crime Commissioner, community representatives and owners/occupiers of any land affected. The Licensing Services Manager confirmed that a number of organisations were consulted including the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.