Agenda item

Designated Public Place Orders

(Assistant Director Legal Services) to consider the attached report and maps.

Minutes:

The Safer Communities Manager, Caroline Wiggins, introduced the report on Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO). The Committee were looking at using new powers to declare certain areas where restrictions on the public drinking of alcohol would apply. A local authority can make a DPPO in respect of a public place where this is evidence of nuisance or annoyance to members of the public associated with consuming alcohol in that place. In this case the two areas in question were:

 

1)      Stonards Hill Recreation Ground, Epping, including the car park, Scout Hut, Jack Silley Pavillion car park, tennis courts, football stand and ground; and

2)      Lower Swaines playing fields, Epping, including the public footpath running along the boundary of St Johns School from Lower Swaines to Bury Lane, the garages behind 2 Lower Swaines and public land and highway extending from St Johns School outside numbers 2 to 18 and 1 to 43 Lower Swaines.

 

Both areas were shown highlighted on updated maps that were tabled at the meeting. These differed slightly from the maps printed in the agenda.

 

The Committee noted that the DPPO did not stop everyone from drinking in the designated areas but only in association with anti-social behaviour. Once in place, the Police can use their confiscation powers to enforce the restriction.

 

Councillor Cohen commented that the DPPO seemed to be a poor relation to a dispersal order. Mrs Wiggins said that not all young people caused trouble; sometimes they just met in groups and did not cause any problems. This order gave the Police discretion and was only to be used in relation to any anti-social behaviour.

 

 

Councillor Mrs Smith said that the order had just gone through a consultation process, what would happen to it now?  Mrs Wiggins said that they had to advertise it in the local press, if there were no responses they would then place a more informative advert in the press identifying the place and date it would come into effect.

 

Councillor Mrs Smith asked how the order would be reviewed in the coming years. Mrs Wiggins said they would monitor police reports and contact local residents if they had seen any improvements.

 

It was noted that if any representations were made after the initial consultation process and they could not be resolved, officer would bring a further report to the Committee for a decision as to whether or not to proceed with the DPPO.  Councillor Cohen proposed that this be delegated to the next available Sub-committee to save time having to wait for the next full meeting of the committee. This was seconded by Councillor Wyatt and agreed by the Committee.

 

            RESOLVED:

 

1.         That Designated Public Place Orders be made in respect of the following areas:

 

                    i)            Stonards Hill Recreation Ground, Epping, including the car park, Scout Hut, Jack Silley Pavilion car park, tennis courts, football stand and ground, as shown edged red on Plan No: 1 (attached).

 

                   ii)            Lower Swaines playing fields, Epping, including the public footpath running along the boundary of St Johns School from Lower Swaines to Bury Lane. Garages behind 2 Lower Swaines and public land and highway extending from St Johns School outside numbers 2 – 18 and 1 – 43 Lower Swaines, as shown edged red on Plan No: 2 (attached)

 

2.         That all necessary public notices be published in accordance with the legislation to enable the Designated Public Place Orders to take effect.

 

3.         That in the event that representations opposing the making of a DPPO are made as a result of publication of the first public notice and officers are unable to resolve the issue such that the objection is withdrawn a further report shall be brought back to the nearest available Sub-Committee before the DPPO is made.

 

4.         That a report be brought to this Committee within two years, for their consideration on the effectiveness of the DPPO’s and as to whether to continue with, amend or cancel either of them.

Supporting documents: