In accordance with the Council’s Petitions Scheme, to receive and debate the following petition, which has been signed by 1146 people:
“We the undersigned ask that Gloucester City Council:
a) Scrap Public Space Protection Orders in Gloucester and instead, use the money being invested into this scheme to provide more over night shelters and accommodation for street homeless.
b) Fulfill your legal duty under the 2010 Equality Act to complete a proper (EIA) Equality Impact Assessment and present this to the public before the public consultation ends and if not presented before the PSPO's are introduced or in good time, then you must extend the public consultation period to give the public adequate time to respond.”
Minutes:
6.1 Council considered the following petition which had been signed by 1,146 people:
“We the undersigned ask that Gloucester City Council:
a) Scrap Public Space Protection Orders in Gloucester and instead, use the money being invested into this scheme to provide more overnight shelters and accommodation for street homeless.
b) Fulfil your legal duty under the 2010 Equality Act to complete a proper (EIA) Equality Impact Assessment and present this to the public before the public consultation ends and if not presented before the PSPO's are introduced or in good time, then you must extend the public consultation period to give the public adequate time to respond.”
6.2 In the absence of the lead petitioner, Council debated the petition.
6.3 Councillor Jennie Watkins (Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods) thanked the petitioner for raising the issue and stated that she appreciated the motive behind it. She outlined that the consultation was live, that it would close on 4th April 2018 and to accept the petition would deny the consultation due process. Councillor Watkins stated that assurances had previously been given that any PSPO would not include homeless people.
6.4 With regard to the EIA referred to in the petition, Councillor Watkins stated that carrying out such an exercise would prejudice the outcome of the consultation and gave an assurance that, if the PSPO proposal was adopted, a full impact assessment would be conducted. She further advised that homelessness would not be solved simply through housing and that many had complex, multiple needs.
6.5 Councillor Hilton indicated that the Liberal Democrats Group would vote to reject the petition. He stated that he was in favour of considering PSPOs and that there were problems in his ward in relation to street drinking and anti-social behaviour. He further stated that a PSPO should be able to help this and he thanked the Cabinet Member for including London Road in the proposal. Councillor Hilton shared his view that the petition was part of the consultation as were other views.
6.6 Councillor Pullen thanked the petitioner for contributing to the debate on the proposed PSPOs. He stated that the Labour Group recognised that PSPOs could help combat Anti-Social Behaviour and make people feel safe. He continued that he wanted everyone to enjoy the City and that the criteria was sensible.
6.7 Councillor Pullen had some concern with the proposals and highlighted the concern around homeless people. He recognised that assurances had been given previously but shared his view that he wanted these assurances to be explicitly expressed in the order if PSPOs were to be introduced. He stated that he would continue to support the homeless but could not support the petition.
6.8 Councillor Patel brought to Members’ attention that a similar scheme (DPPOs) had been introduced previously to combat issues around street drinking and that this had been successful.
6.9 Councillor Stephens thanked the Mayor for his discretion and stated his hope that the Cabinet would take on board the concerns that lay behind the petition. He stated that, in some parts of the country, PSPOs had targeted homeless people and that, in other places, they had helped the community. He informed Members that he wanted to see definitive wording that it would not target the homeless included in the PSPO.
6.10 Councillor Watkins stated that she was pleased with the debate and that the 1,146 people’s views were as relevant as any other residents. She recognised that in some areas, PSPOs had been implemented poorly and she did not want Gloucester to be an example of poor implementation. Councillor Watkins concluded by stating that the Council listens to such consultations as it did over the proposed late-night levy and would continue to do so.
6.11 RESOLVED that the petition be declined.