Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

(a)          Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public to the full Council or at the meeting itself.

(b)          Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 26 June 2018 (copy attached).

(c)          Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 26 June 2018.

5a        Petitions

5.1       There were none.

5b       Written Questions

5.2       It was noted that one written question had been received. The question and response given to it are set out below:

            Question on Behalf of Friends Families and Travellers (FFT)

5.3       Mr David Thomas of the Housing Coalition was invited to put his question and also had the opportunity to ask one supplementary question should he so wish.

            “On 21 February 2018 FFT wrote to the Chief Executive, pointing out that the Statutory Guidance on the use of PSPOs had changed to make it absolutely clear that they should not be used to target homeless people setting out the way that the Brighton & Hove Park and Open Spaces PSPO breached the new Guidance and Equalities Act, and demanding that the PSPO be withdrawn. The recent council report (16/03/18) on its operation makes clear that the PSPO is used only to target homeless people and travellers. What changes is the council proposing to make to its operation.”

5.4       The Chair gave the following response:

            “The claim that the way the council implemented PSPOs breaches the specific guidance you are asking about is completely refuted. I responded to a similar question at the meeting of the Committee held in March making it clear that a further letter from our Chief Executive had been sent out refuting this as well. I will explain why we refute this now:

            The PSPOs prohibiting amongst other things, vehicles and encampments on public spaces are limited to 12 specific sites and are not a general citywide prohibition as some local authorities have brought in. They were brought in because some communities were unable to use their public spaces for significant periods and experienced significant anti-social behaviour.

            These sites were chosen and this policy brought in after extensive consultation, including with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

            They said they recognised that we were in a difficult place, needing to balance two sets of rights, those of residents to use facilities and those of ethnic travellers and gypsies.

            In reviewing responses to that consultation and making decisions they advised we needed to be certain that we were having regard to genuine loss of amenity and not responses that were purely driven by prejudice. In my view the review on the agenda for the March meeting and the original paper had been very careful to take an evidence base that was extremely secure on loss of amenity.

            They also agreed that the safest way forward to have regard to undue impact and to the council’s role in creating an environment which protects Gypsy/Traveller rights is to ensure that any PSPO relating to encampments is not a blanket ban across all public spaces. As I have already said, this is limited to 12 sites.

            This duty and best practice includes specifically signposting to transit sites or stopping places when warning on PSPOs. To my knowledge, this is how we behave and take a strong welfare role too. The EHRC also recommended that we did not implement these PSPOs until we had our transit site fully open after refurbishment. We ensured this policy was not live until it was re-opened.

            There is a lot of confusion over these PSPOs and it is important to clarify that they are only on limited sites. They have improved the lives of residents, that our implementation takes due regard to the rights and welfare of gypsies and travellers and, that the term PSPO covers a range of interventions not just these specific ones. We have PSPOs prohibiting dogs off leads and also gating orders.

            We have not implemented our PSPOs in any way that contravenes the guidance issued last winter and, the voluntary review which was discussed at our last committee meeting is part of our commitment to openness and transparency on how they are working.”

5.5       Mr Thomas demurred stating that he disagreed with the response provided by the Chair. However, the Chair, Councillor Daniel stated that a light touch approach had been adopted in Brighton and Hove which was completely legal and sought to be sensitive to the needs of all.

5c        Deputations

5.6       There were none.