Agenda item

Public Space Protection Order -Alcohol

Minutes:

E.24/21           

The Executive considered a report that set out a series of recommendations as to whether or not an Alcohol Public Space Protection Order should be made in relation to eight towns or areas within the District of South Hams.  The report stated that each of the recommendations was based on an assessment of the evidence as to whether or not the statutory grounds for making each Order had been established.

 

The lead Executive Member introduced the agenda item and wished to thank the lead officer for producing the report and he wished her well in her new employment following her departure from the Council.  The Member also confirmed that all town and parish councils and local Ward Members had been consulted on the proposals outlined within the presented agenda report.

 

In discussion, reference was made to:-

 

(a)  some apparent inconsistencies in both the recommendations of the Police and the maps.  As an example of the apparent inconsistencies, a Member advised that despite South Brent having reported higher instances of Anti-Social Behaviour than Salcombe, it was Salcombe that was being recommended to adopt an Order whilst South Brent was not.  Furthermore, a Member questioned why Borough Park, Totnes had been omitted from the proposed Order from Totnes.  As a result, Members recognised the need for the Orders to be agreed at the Council meeting on 15 July 2021, but before a final decision was made, it was agreed that all of the maps should be reviewed to ensure that there were no inconsistencies;

 

(b)  the three areas (Modbury, South Brent and Woolwell) that were proposed to have no Order made at this time.  In each of these three areas, Members cited examples of local residents being unhappy at the proposal to have no Order made.  In addition, a statement was read on behalf of the local Ward Member for Woolwell that set out her deep reservations at the proposals.  In recognition of these concerns, Members felt that an alternative recommendation should be put to the Council meeting that read as follows:

 

That Council be RECOMMENDED to request a further review into whether or not an Alcohol Public Space Protection Order 2021 should be invoked in the following areas: Modbury; South Brent; and Woolwell.’

 

It was then:

 

RECOMMENDED

     

      That Council be RECOMMENDED to:

 

1.    agree (subject to each of the maps being reviewed) the:

 

(a)  Dartmouth Alcohol Public Space Protection Order 2021 (as set out in Appendix A of the presented agenda report);

(b)  Ivybridge Alcohol Public Space Protection Order 2021 (as set out in Appendix B of the presented agenda report);

(c)   Kingsbridge Alcohol Public Space Protection Order 2021 (as set out in Appendix C of the presented agenda report);

(d)  Salcombe Alcohol Public Space Protection Order 2021 (as set out in Appendix E of the presented agenda report); and

(e)  Totnes Alcohol Public Space Protection Order 2021 (as set out in Appendix G of the presented agenda report);   and

 

2.    request a further review into whether or not an Alcohol Public Space Protection Order 2021 should be invoked in the following areas:

 

          Modbury;

          South Brent; and

          Woolwell.

 

 

(NOTE: in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 1.9.4, Cllrs H Bastone and J Hawkins abstained from the vote on part 1(a) and Cllr J Pearce abstained from the vote on part 1(e) by virtue of being local Ward Members).

 

 

Supporting documents: