Minutes:
Councillor Weatherly introduced the report and moved the recommendations set out in the report. She noted that the purpose was to tackle quality of life issues and anti-social behaviour. The concerns relating to the proposals for rough sleeping and begging were acknowledged and she drew members’ attention to measures to ensure discretion in the enforcement of the order, furthermore any enforcement action would be closely monitored by the monthly Rough Sleepers Professionals meetings.
Councillor March seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak.
Councillor Lidstone welcomed the actions taken to mitigate concerns relating to rough sleepers and begging but was unable to support a proposal that had the potential to issue fines in such circumstances. Paragraph 1.12 of the report set out that enforcement could be carried out by “Street Scene Enforcement Officers, contract enforcement staff and authorised Council officers.” He was not confident that the contract staff could be trusted to exercise the level of discretion that might be expected of Council officers. He also questioned how enforceable any fines could be and added that genuinely homeless people would be unable to pay and opportunist beggars could leave and the fines would not be recoverable. Councillor Lidstone moved an amendment to omit the restrictions relating to rough sleeping and begging, specifically to insert the words “except paragraphs 4.4.7 and 4.4.8” in recommendations 1 after “Section 4.4” and before “of the report be approved”.
Councillor Chapelard seconded the amendment and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Holden commented that the enforceability of any such fine was something which needed to be looked into further.
Councillor Neve commented that many people who were rough sleeping may have underlying mental health issues and they may not be able to seek help. He added that people also had the right to choose how to live and it was unfair to penalise such people.
Councillor Munn commented that some people may live on the streets because they had genuine mental health issues which made it difficult to be around people or accept help from authorities. To put pressure on such people could have the effect of driving them into more dangerous situations.
Councillor March commented that the Portfolio Holder had worked extensively with those who support people living on the street and many people had been helped back on the road to recovery. She added that the Council were not seeking to penalise anyone but would do all it could to help people and the proposals could encourage people to accept help.
Councillor Moore urged members to note the wording of the restriction which prohibited begging or rough sleeping where there was anti-social behaviour or the person was not engaging with support services. She felt the original proposals struck the right balance between supporting those who had fallen on hard times and tackling anti-social behaviour.
Councillor Jukes commented that the Council was often accused of not listening to residents and he questioned why proposals that were supported by the public through a clear consultation were being challenged by some Councillors.
Councillor Heasman felt that the restrictions were necessary as there were areas, such as Torrington Car Park, where people were wary to go due to anti-social behaviour. He added that begging was sometimes aggressive or a lifestyle choice so whilst the powers would likely be seldom used they were necessary.
Councillor Dr Basu recalled his experience working with homeless people in London where strict measures had been implemented. There were very few rough sleepers who caused a nuisance and the support available in Tunbridge Wells was very effective. He added that there was no intention of penalising genuinely homeless people.
Councillor Huggett felt that the report clearly stated that the intention was not to target those with mental health issues but those who came to Tunbridge Wells to dishonestly make money.
Councillor Stanyer commented that the key issue was implementing the wish of the people to tackle those who deliberately upset the good order, such as professional beggars. Support was available for those in genuine need and there was no intention to penalise those with mental health issues. He recalled a recent incident which convinced him that in genuine cases care and support was a better long term solution than fining people. The proposals, however, were a reasonable way to tackle aggressive begging.
Councillor Reilly recalled his experience working with homelessness charities and had sympathy for people, including former military personnel, living on the streets with genuine problems but he felt that the proposals dealt with anti-social behaviour.
Councillor Barrington-King commented that only a few people would be unconcerned by the problem of homelessness but there needed to be some parameters. He felt the papers clearly set out the safeguards to be applied and he had confidence in the members and officers associated with the report to ensure the proposals were properly implemented.
Councillor Chapelard requested a recorded vote. He commented that the problem was not with the beggars but that Tunbridge Wells was a too lucrative opportunity for begging. He suggested a better course of action for the Council would be to encourage residents to donate to charity rather than giving directly to people on the streets. He did not have confidence in Kingdom Security who would be partly responsible for enforcing the prohibitions. He noted that they had recently lost their contract with Maidstone Borough Council and had a disproportionately high number of appeals against their littering ticketing. Councillor Chapelard questioned whether the motivation behind the prohibitions was actually social cleansing and removing undesirables from view. He added that if the Council supported homelessness properly the powers would be unnecessary.
Councillor Sloan commented that the elements of discretion set out in the report were reassuring but he proposed caution to ensure proper training for the contract staff who may enforce the prohibition. He welcomed the careful drafting of the behaviour agreements included in the papers and commented that fining those who were unable to pay would only worsen the situation.
Councillor Hastie commented that the proposals clearly stated that fines could be imposed for anti-social behaviour and were not intended as punishment for people’s distressed circumstances. Suggestions of social cleansing or profiteering were unfounded.
Councillor Weatherly clarified that contract staff would only enforce the restrictions after engagement work had been exhausted by the Community Safety Unit and Housing Services. She referred to the guidance for authorised officers set out in Appendix C to the report which stated the intention was not to penalise begging or rough sleeping but to tackle persistent anti-social behaviour and non-engagement with support services. If an individual was not causing issues for other users of the public space and was engaging with support services, the Council was minded to address any issues through negotiation with the individual. She added that the support available for rough sleepers was particularly good in Tunbridge Wells and she was upset to hear the accusation of social cleansing.
The Deputy Mayor took a recorded vote.
Members voting in favour of the amendment: Councillors Chapelard, Hill, Lidstone, Munn and Neve. (5)
Members voting against the amendment: The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Horwood, Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Dr Basu, Bland, Bulman, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hamilton, Hannam, Hastie, Heasman, Hills, Huggett, Jukes, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Moore, Noakes, Nuttall, Oakford, Ms Palmer, Podbury, Rankin, Reilly, Scholes, Simmons, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas and Weatherly. (33)
Members abstaining from voting: Councillors Holden, Lewis-Grey, Sloan and Williams. (4)
The amendment fell and debate returned to the original motion.
Councillor Holden was confident that there was no intention to penalise those in need or with genuine mental health issues but was concerned that contractors seemingly would have power to summarily issue fines on a range of prohibitions without due process or recourse to appeal.
Councillor Hastie noted that the public supported a ban on aggressive charity collectors known as ‘chuggers’, which was often a lucrative business that those who donated were often unaware of. He added that other town centres where chugging was banned saw an increase in footfall as people were able to go about their business more freely. He had confidence in Councillor Weatherly and the Community Safety Unit and referred to the charity ‘Care After Combat’ who did great work with veterans who accounted for a disproportionately high number of homeless people, possibly as they were trained not to ask for help.
Councillor Moore highlighted that the proposals covered quality of life issues and anti-social behaviour in areas other than rough sleeping or begging. Overly heavy-handed use of such powers would reasonably attract the attention of the press and public but the implementation in Tunbridge Wells struck the right balance. For example, dog controls were well supported and it was reasonable to ban dogs from fenced play areas and to require dogs to be kept on leads in sports areas rather than an outright ban so that everyone could enjoy the facilities. Whilst busking could help create a vibrant shopping environment there had been many complaints in the town centre where amplified music disrupted people’s ability to work. The proposals had been supported by both the Communities Cabinet Advisory Board and Cabinet.
Councillor Heasman was pleased that the dog controls achieved a balance. He noted that the restrictions applied to playing fields and he referred to the consultation responses highlighting the efforts needed to remove faeces before matches. He added that the situation should be monitored over the next year to ensure irresponsible dog owners abide the restrictions. If there was no improvement he would support strengthening the controls.
Councillor Rankin felt the proposals were a measured response to legitimate concerns. She highlighted that the report set out safeguards where enforcement staff were unable to issue a fix penalty notice unless Council staff had first established that ‘persistent anti-social behaviour’ was generally an issue and that specific behaviour was anti-social at the time of engagement. This provided assurances that contract staff could not issue fines without backing it up with evidence first and gave an opportunity for the Council’s front line staff to engage and provide support in the first instance.
Councillor Neve had concerns about the ambiguity of the use of ‘discretion’ and felt this should be made stronger. However, he supported the dog fouling controls and increased fines.
Councillor Sloan commented that the penalty for failing to comply with an order without reasonable excuse was a fine on conviction not exceeding £1,000; a fixed penalty notice of a maximum £100 could be used as an alternative. He questioned whose decision it was which alternative would be in place and whether a person who disputed a fixed penalty notice could have the matter considered by the Magistrates’ Court. If referral to the Magistrates’ Courts was an option this would provide reasonable safeguards.
Councillor Backhouse, in his capacity as Chairman of the Licensing Committee, highlighted the many complaints received concerned with ‘chuggers’, excessively amplified music and dog fouling in the town centre. These were problems which needed to be tackled vigorously and whilst they may be difficult to enforce the Council needed to try.
Councillor Dr Basu welcomed the increase in dog fouling fines from £50 to £100.
Councillor Hill commended the report and welcomed the controls on dog fouling but she was disappointed they had been put together with begging and rough sleeping and she could not support the recommendations. She felt that it was wrong to target those with nothing and there was not enough information on the causes or the background in each case to take sweeping actions. She noted that 56 per cent of the respondents to the consultation did not feel that begging was a problem and similarly only 50 per cent saw rough sleeping as a problem. Some people had traumatic pasts and were unable to engage with support services and it was wrong to fine such a person. She added that there were too many people on the Housing Register with little chance of finding a home and the Council needed to do more before it looked to penalise those in need.
Councillor March noted the report included a detailed description of what discretion meant and the types of unacceptable behaviour. Much work had gone into the report and she was confident that the team had gone about it in a thoughtful way. She added that the intention was not to pick on people or penalise those who did not fit in. The measures were balanced and targeted specific problems.
Councillor Weatherly clarified that a person did have the right to appeal to the Council and a decision to prosecute would be made by the Head of Service in consultation with Legal Services.
Councillor Chapelard requested a recorded vote.
The Deputy Mayor took a recorded vote.
Members voting in favour of the motion: Councillors Backhouse, Barrington-King, Dr Basu, Bland, Mrs Cobbold, Dawlings, Elliott, Dr Hall, Hamilton, Hannam, Hastie, Heasman, Hills, Huggett, Jukes, Lewis-Grey, Mackonochie, March, McDermott, Moore, Noakes, Nuttall, Oakford, Ms Palmer, Podbury, Rankin, Reilly, Scholes, Simmons, Sloan, Stanyer, Mrs Thomas and Weatherly. (33)
Members voting against the motion: Councillors Chapelard and Lidstone. (2)
Members abstaining from voting: The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Horwood, Councillors Hill, Holden, Munn, Neve and Williams. (6)
RESOLVED –
1. That the creation of appropriate Public Spaces Protection Orders under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 incorporating the prohibition and positive requirements set out in Section 4.4 of the report be approved; and
2. That authority be delegated to the Head of Environment and Street Scene, in consultation with the Head of Legal Partnership and the Portfolio Holder for Communities and Wellbeing, to finalise the drafting of the Public Spaces Protection Orders including the commencement date(s).
Supporting documents: