Agenda item

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations:

1. To carry out a consultation in relation to the future Town Centre and Clifton Park Public Spaces Protection Order.

2. To carry out a consultation in relation to the future Borough wide Public Spaces Protection Order specifically dealing with dog fouling and control.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities explained that The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) provided powers to introduce PSPO’s in order to prevent individuals or groups committing anti-social behaviour (ASB) in public spaces.

The current Town Centre/Clifton Park Protection Order and the Borough-Wide Dog Fouling Protection Order were renewed in January for a period of twelve months. The Town Centre/Clifton Park Protection Order contained a number of conditions linked to anti-social behaviour whereas the Borough-Wide Dog Fouling Protection Order dealt with dog fouling.

The report proposed consultation would take place with established stakeholders to seek their views in relation to both PSPO’s and gain support for future designation, which would be sought regarding the conditions not included in the order. The number of complaints related to dog fouling across the borough had steadily increased, and anti-social behaviour continued to be a concern. He also informed members that inconsiderate and rowdy behaviour had been the most prevalent form of anti-social behaviour and had increased further in Quarter 1 of 2024/25 compared to the previous year.

The Cabinet Member explained that several powers that could be used against individuals committing anti-social behaviour, and the PSPO would serve as an additional tool. The town centre, considered part of the Council’s regeneration programme which included Forge Island, required available tools to address anti-social behaviour to ensure the successful completion of the projects. Members were informed that the consultation would take place over a few weeks and would involve engagement with key stakeholders including elected members, businesses, partners, and the public.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene informed members that, as indicated in the report, it was part of the legal process for introducing Public Space Protection Orders(PSPO). Public Space Protection Orders gave authorised officers, whether police or council officers, the power to take certain things against individuals committing criminal offences.

Members were informed that PSPOs could only be implemented where specific legal thresholds had been met, as detailed in the legal section of the report. However, PSPO’s could only be introduced where activities were carried out in a public place or were likely to impact the quality of life for those in that particular area. Furthermore, the behaviours must be persistent or continuing in nature and sufficient to justify the conditions proposed within the order. The report indicated that the Council was satisfied that these initial thresholds had been met and that the consultation was a legal necessity. The matter would then go for public consultation before being submitted back to Members to seek permission to introduce orders in the future.

Councillor Joshua Bacon asked a question on behalf of Councillor Tinsley, who had provided his apologies for the meeting. He enquired, whether in addition to the dog fouling PSPO, if any consideration be given to other borough-wide PSPO, such as protecting life-saving equipment. He asked if there could be a PSPO for Rotherham’s parks, such as Rother Valley, to deter swimming and stipulate that swimming could only take place with a swimming club. He also mentioned that places such as Maltby suffer from street drinking and could benefit from the reintroduction of PSPOs, such as alcohol exclusion zones which had previously lapsed. He wanted to know if the consultation would include other concerns or issues which could be addressed by PSPOs to reduce other kinds of anti-social behaviour in Rotherham. Additionally, Councillor Bacon (on behalf of Councillor Tinsley) asked if appropriate signage would be put up in places with fenced play areas to prevent loose dogs running around.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene stated that the report had been presented in a specific order, including appendices that were part of the consultation and highlighted certain legal thresholds that needed to be met. One of these threshold’s was to have evidence of the particular issues and whether they were persistent and significant enough to require a PSPO. He explained that this had previously been reviewed by the last Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB), and included extensive research on the existing evidence base, particularly concerning the issue raised by Councillor Bacon about life-saving equipment.

Furthermore, the Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene noted that there hadonly been one recorded incident of damage to life-saving equipment across the entire borough. This presented a challenge determining whether there was a sufficient evidence base to bring any criminal sanction for that type of behaviour, and to date, there had been no incidents raised. Substantiated evidence of such incidents would be required to introduce those types of orders. However, officers from Neighbourhood Teams, Community Safety and Community Protection were keen to work with Ward Members to understand the current local issues and challenges in their wards. It was expected that these officers, along with partners and stakeholders would try everything at their disposal to resolve those issues. If those efforts failed, and PSPO’s seemed the most appropriate route, the matter would then be brought back to members for their approval. In addition, it was noted that enforcement had continued to be challenge for the Council, particularly in terms of resourcing and enforcing those orders. This was another challenge that needed to be considered when implementing any such orders.

Councillor Bacon responded and asked when the report about the proposed PSPO’s would be sent to Elected Members to gain their feedback as part of the consultation process, so they could provide a full picture of their wards.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed that he would liaise with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities on how to proceed with any further engagement with Members. He stated that it would be expected for council officers to routinely work with Elected Members to identify and resolve issues in their local areas. Members were informed about problem-solving plans where the Council worked with partners and the police to tackle specific local issues. However, if this approach failed, council officers would consider further actions in collaboration with Elected Members to implement additional measures. It was expected that this approach would naturally occur during conversations within the Community Action Partnerships, and ward briefings, but it would be jointly reflected upon with the Cabinet Member to determine if further actions were needed by the service.

Councillor Yasseen expressed concerns regarding the history of the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) introduced for Boston Castle. She noted that the initial consultation previously taken place had been poor, particularly highlighted by the significant turnout of frustrated dog walkers at a Clifton Park meeting. Councillor Yasseen enquired how future consultations with Elected Members would be more effective and evidence based. Additionally, she asked what measurable improvements had been observed since the PSPO’s implementation, concerning issues like dog fouling and whether evidence could be provided to show that those interventions had made a meaningful difference. She pointed out that dog fouling and anti-social behaviour had increased, suggesting that the PSPO’s were not fully utilised.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed he had just joined the Council when the initial consultation took place at Clifton Park in 2017. He acknowledged there had been failures during the engagement and consultation with that part of the community at that time, but overall, there was still considerable support from the broader public consultation regarding those conditions. However, following discussions, the Council sought to make adjustments on how it enforced the powers and conditions in Clifton Park to address and ease the concerns raised by the dog walkers. It was noted that there had not been the same level of backlash when renewing those orders, which had suggested the adjustments made had been effective in alleviating some of that group’s concerns.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene further noted that it was difficult to determine if those measures had been effective, which often happened with preventive measures as it was challenging to know what the impact would have been if these tools or powers were not in place. He also confirmed that this would be an area where the Council would continue its work in the coming years, subject to any orders being granted and approved by Members. He noted that the effectiveness of those powers largely depended on the feedback from officers who utilised them daily, particularly across the town centre, with the most common incidents around individuals surrendering alcohol. It was found that when people complied willingly and handed over the alcohol, it prevented potential offences. The Commission was informed that it only become an offence when someone refused to surrender their alcohol to an officer. In those cases, they were not recorded as a fixed penalty, but officers had reported that the order had been a valuable tool in preventing disruptive behaviours and identifying persistent and repeat offenders.

However, it was evident from the data that anti-social behaviour had continued to increase in the areas mentioned, which often was against a backdrop of decreased anti-social behaviour across other areas. Ultimately, whilst officers had found this tool effective, there needed to be further analysis to understand its impact on this area, especially if the Council was to be successful in designating additional orders.

Councillor Yasseen explained that the reason there had been no backlash since 2017 was that the order had not been fully enforced and, therefore, had not affected anyone. Councillor Yaseen also mentioned that she had met with a group of volunteers from among the dog owners on a weekly basis after that initial meeting in 2017 and wanted to know if that same group would be consulted as part of this new consultation. She felt that the questionnaire should also include Clifton Park, but she had no objections to including the town centre, as it would make for a more appropriate use of resources given the rising anti-social behaviours. Councillor Yaseen then enquired about the clear metrics that would be used in the PSPO to determine whether the measures had been effective, noting that there were still costs associated, even if the police had primary responsibility for the enforcement.

The Chair acknowledged the comments submitted on this issue made and assured Members that in relation to PSPO’s and parks, if dog owners were responsible and followed the guidelines within the PSPO, then they would not be fined.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene concurred with the Chair that responsible dog owners would not be fined if they followed the designated guidelines when walking their dogs in parks. He informed Members that, as a result of discussions with the dog walkers back in 2017, a concern had been raised about the immediate issuance of fixed penalty notices when a dog crossed a designated line. Consequently, specific guidance was developed for officers to ensure if such situation arose, they would ask the dog owner to recall their dog and demonstrate full control before any enforcement actions would be taken.

He also confirmed that he would discuss consultation methods further with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities. He advised that, for many of these conditions, it would not be appropriate to separate the town centre from Clifton Park. For instance, with alcohol consumption he noted that the risk of displacement into other areas could be significant if treated separately. However, in relation to dog control, he acknowledged that the impact might vary across various locations, particularly since many people visit Clifton Park specifically to walk their dogs. He confirmed that he was open to exploring the possibility of developing more tailored questions to be used as part of the consultation to include Clifton Park.

The Chair proceeded to ask a couple of questions on this issue. He wanted clarification as to who would be consulted and if Parish Councils would be included. In addition, he queried how long the consultation activity would take.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed that the consultation period would take around six weeks and would start from mid-September to the end of October. The consultation would include a variety of different consultation methods to gather feedback which he knew had been effective from previous consultations he had delivered. However, he informed Members that the most valuable method of consultation would be the face-to-face engagement, so it was the intended that council officers would collect feedback directly from the community in Clifton Park by either using iPads or paper questionnaires. Furthermore, Parish Councils Members would be contacted and included in the consultation. The consultation would also utilise digital channels, this includes emails to provide further information on the consultation, and newsletters. Additionally, the planned to work closely with colleagues from Neighbourhood Services and other areas to ensure a wider selection of people were engaged.

Councillor Bacon appreciated the Council was taking anti-social behaviour seriously. However, he stated that current anti-social behaviour figures reflected only 50% of the actual situation in Rotherham, as he felt people lacked the confidence to report these issues. He asked if anything else could be done by the service or the Council to improve reporting figures, so they accurately reflected of the problems within Rotherham. Councillor Bacon then queried what plans and metrics were in place to measure the success of the PSPO, and whether a decrease in reported incidents was anticipated. Finally, Councillor Bacon asked if there were any plans by the Council to lobby the Police and Crime Commissioner or to have more targeted action days across the town centre and in the borough to combat the rising figures.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene acknowledged the importance of fostering public confidence in reporting issues and emphasised that concerns extended beyond just the specific behaviours discussed. He notes that non-reporting, also applied to many other types of criminal behaviour such as domestic abuse, where a considerable number of incidents would occur before a crime was reported. He assured Members that this had been a priority for the Safer Rotherham Partnership, which was chaired by the Cabinet Member for Finance and Safe and Clean Communities which was the legal body in place. This partnership had prioritised addressing anti-social behaviour and community safety concerns for some time and was entering a revised priority-setting process, which would shape the partnership’s strategy for the next few years. This priority setting would also include discussions with Members to help determine future priorities.

Although the Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene was not in a position to pre-empt any decisions, he assured Members that community-based concerns, particularly in relation to anti-social behaviour, would remain a key focus for the Council and Members. He confirmed that he would advocate for a reduction in anti-social behaviour across the town centre, which would serve as a key indicator of success. Additionally, he acknowledged that the Council needed to enhance its operational delivery, and this success would depend on how effectively systems were established to record enforcement actions, as current systems had not been fully adequate. It was acknowledged that there also needed to be improvement in the exchange of information between council officers and the police regarding interventions, to enable more accurate data capture and reporting.

Regarding the Police and Crime Commissioner, Members were informed that role was now a part of the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA). The Council aimed to continue collaborating with partners across the region and engage in various forums that would address anti-social behaviour issues affecting Rotherham and the region. Members were informed that there was a strong partnership working across teams co-located together, enabling closer collaboration with police colleagues to drive enforcement activities and achieve better solutions.

Councillor Bacon further asked if the proposed PSPO could include both drugs and alcohol in the order, as the report only referred to alcohol. He had felt that changing the wording might provide additional tools and powers to help prevent drug-related anti-social behaviour in the town centre. He also enquired if the service would commit to any targets at this stage or even to a percentage decrease in their targets.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene stated that it would be difficult to commit to specific targets at this stage, as part of the challenge faced by the Council was the under-reporting of incidents, as previously discussed. He agreed with Members that more needed to be done to encourage and enable people to report incidents. However, he also noted that having specific targets in place could adversely affect reporting rates. In relation to including with drugs or other substances in the PSPO, he stated that existing laws were in place, which already addressed this issue. It needed to be noted that the Council would be unable to duplicate existing statutes through the PSPO, especially when those laws carried more significant penalties. However, it was acknowledged that the broader concerns and challenges facing the town centre were experienced throughout the country, and the service was keen to address the issues in whatever capacity it could.

Councillor McKiernan then asked about paragraph 2.14 in the report, which referred to external funding from the Home Office. He wanted to know what would happen if the funding was not extended for another additional year. He also sought clarification on how much the consultation would cost the Council?

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene confirmed that the costs for the consultation would be covered by existing resources within the service’s budget. In relation to the funding, it wasconfirmed that the extra funding from the Home Office would be for the Safer Street’s initiative, and the Council was currently on round six or seven of that funding. He noted that historically, the funding primarily supported capital-related projects, such as improving lighting in Clifton Park, and enhancing CCTV across the borough. However, the latest rounds of funding would be allocated for more revenue-based activities. This would allow the Council to apply for funding to deploy extra patrols and provide more police and council officer coverage, without relying on overtime. Members were informed that this funding represented more additional money on top of any separate commitments from the Home Office, which would be used for more police officers on the street and would be reviewed in terms of impact and outcome at the appropriate time.

Councillor Blackham then raised a valid concern regarding the ongoing issue of anti-social behaviour at Greenland’s Park in Anston. He noted that while the police had responded to a recent incident, to help reduce anti-social behaviour in that area there had been ongoing discussions about locking a gate at Greenland’s Park. A resident with council-owned property beyond the gate had attempted to secure it, but the situation had been complicated due to the proximity of their house to the Health Centre next door. Councillor Blackham wanted to know about the responsibility for locking this gate as he believed that it would be a simple solution that could reduce anti-social behaviour, and in turn be less demanding on resources.

The Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene acknowledged these concerns but confirmed that he would meet Councillor Blackham privately to discuss these issues further, as he was unable to go into specifics of this incident during the meeting. However, he agreed that dynamic thinking to address such problems should be considered and the Council would always look for creative ways to reduce the demand on resources. He explained that legal requirements compelled the Council to explore alternative options, and much was being done to promote this approach. He assured Members that there were collaborations with colleagues and partners on strength-based strategies, which focused on leveraging existing community assets and infrastructure. He further stated that this was a prime example of how various approaches could be combined to develop more dynamic solutions that effectively addressed issues whilst minimising resource strain.

The Chair thanked the Assistant Director, Community Safety and Street Scene for his participation at the meeting.

Resolved: – That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendation that Cabinet agree:

1.    To carry out a consultation in relation to the future Town Centre and Clifton Park Public Spaces Protection Order.

2.     To carry out a consultation in relation to the future Borough wide Public Spaces Protection Order specifically dealing with dog fouling and control.