Agenda item

Francesca Bell, Public Protection, Anti-Social Behaviour and Licensing Service Manager:

a.    briefed the Policy Scrutiny Committee on the process and consideration given to date to review an existing Public Space Protection Order in the city centre area of Lincoln.

b.    provided the background relating to the existing Public Space Protection Order, including the area it covered and the reason for its existence in those areas.

c.    reported the outcome of the consultation that had be undertaken for 28 days, commencing on 2 November 2020, further to which five responses had been received with four coming from partners and one being received from a member of the public.

d.    reported that all five responses had called for the existing Public Space Protection Order to remain in place.

e.    reported that all four partner responses called for the extension of the geographical area of the Public Space Protection Order to cover St Rumbolds Street.

f.     reported that, in addition to consultation responses, the Citizens Panel had also returned comments relating specifically to drug users and drunks in the city centre and St Rumbolds Street area. 45 separate comments about drug and alcohol misuse in the city centre had been received.

g.    reported evidence for the current geographical area to remain in place for the Public Space Protection Order, including the number of surrenders, breaches, fixed penalty notices and prosecutions.

h.    reported evidence for the extension of the Public Space Protection Order to include St Rumbolds Street, referred to as Zone 3 in Appendix C attached to the report.

i.      Invited members’ comments and questions.

Question: How many fixed penalty notices had been issued?

Response: A full overview of each year from 2015 was included in the report but for 2020 there had been four surrenders, one breach for alcohol, two breaches for other substances, two fixed penalty notices and two prosecutions.

Question: Was St Peter’s Passage still gated?

Response: St Peter’s Passage was still currently gated with no public access.

Comment: The figures regarding enforcement of the Public Space Protection Order were surprising as it was expected that they would be much higher.

Question: If the Council knew it was the same individuals causing problems and could identify the organisations that were actively supporting them, could the Council request that those organisations took some responsibility? Did the Council actively work with these organisations to prevent problems reoccurring in the city centre? Enforcement should be much stricter as drinking and other substance misuse in the streets, particularly in the city centre, provided a negative reflection on the reputation of the city.

Response: The Council did actively engage with other organisations who supported some of these individuals, who in turn had improved the way in which they engaged with the authority and was a positive development in comparison to previous years. It was emphasised that there were often limitations as to what responsibility they had over an individual and that cases were often extremely complex. Enforcement did need to be strong as otherwise it provided the wrong message in respect of the Order being in place but this was reliant on resources, specifically the Police. It was accepted that, in balancing out all policing matters in the city, enforcement of the Public Space Protection Order was not always considered as a priority. A much better understanding of the issues faced in the city centre, particularly in respect of the Order itself, had been demonstrated since the city centre policing team had been located at City Hall. It was also reported that a lot of issues were dealt with informally, such as the removal of alcohol for example which may not always be logged. The statistics did not, therefore, reflect the subtle enforcement that actively took place in the city centre.

Comment: The proposal to extend the geographic boundary of the Order to Rumbolds Street should be supported and the city centre policing team should be commended for the excellent work they undertook which had made a noticeable difference to the city.

Question: Was the reduction in the number of surrenders, breaches, fixed penalty notices and prosecutions a result of appropriate enforcement and deterrents or the problem being moved to other parts of the city? Would extending the boundary of the Public Space Protection Order therefore move the problem elsewhere, leading to further proposals to extend it in future years?

Response: The issue had generally improved in Lincoln, particularly since 2014 when the consumption of legal highs and super strong alcoholic beverages were a significant issue in the city centre. The reason St Rumbolds Street had become problematic was that there were lots of support and resources available in that area for a lot of the client groups whose behaviour predominantly breached the Public Space Protection Order, so the area naturally attracted those people. It was hoped that extending the boundary would not simply push these problems to another part of the city but it was acknowledged that this was a risk. It was also noted that the larger the geographical area that required enforcement, the more diluted resources became to enforce it.

Question: Would the Council ever consider reducing the geographical area of the Public Space Protection Order?

Response: It was hoped that this would be a possibility in future with one area considered for removal being South Park. However, the Police were keen that this be maintained as part of the Public Space Protection Order to assist with enforcement on match days at the football stadium in relation to street drinking in particular. Any proposal to reduce the area would be undertaken in consultation with key partners, such as the Police.

Question: Issues of substance misuse and anti-social behaviour had been reported at Cannon Street and Stamp End. Could these areas be considered for inclusion as part of the Public Space Protection Order?

Response: The Order was reviewed every three years and there was currently no data available in relation to Cannon Street or Stamp End to substantiate inclusion in the Order. Further consultation would take place where evidence for further areas such as these could be taken into account.