PSPO Consultation Results Summary

Appendix A

PSPO Consultation Results Summary October 2015

Cycling restrictions Reference Description S Summary of issue Summary of response number CYC1. Email Email received on 20th October S Local plan draft policy to improve town centre The proposal to prohibit with draft 2015 at 09:33. Maccessibility includes pedestrians and cyclists. cycling in the local plan pedestrianised area of extract Mansfield Town Centre was not included in the original draft PSPO. A further consultation period on this issue is to be arranged which will provide an opportunity for more discussion/information to be submitted on this point. A member of the PSPO Implementation Team is now on the Cycle Paths Review Task and Finish Group. (Email sent 11.11.15) CYC2. Email Email received on 19th October P Support the provision of cycle parking facilities Please refer to response 2015 at 17:03. Mand cyclists using the town centre. to Point CYC1. above CYC3. Email Email received on 19th October HT&F group favours allowing cycling in delineated Please refer to response

1 Appendix A

+ cycle paths 2015 at 16:57. areas. to Point CYC1. Above review CYC4. Email Email received on 21st September B Raises that cycling in the town centre is a long- Advise that a further 2015 at 10:26. standing concern. Illustrates that there has been consultation on dialogue with Notts County Council to review prohibition of cycling in nuisance cyclist signage. Suggests that Warden the pedestrianised areas assisting Police to tackle cyclists will improve of the Town Centre is effectiveness. being considered.

Request further evidence of (a) anecdotal support and (b) the enforcement action police have already taken on this issue.

(Email sent 11.11.15) CYC5. Email Email received 2 November 2015 at P Extract from Cycling Task and Finish Group. Please refer to response 09:02 to Point CYC1. Above.

Dispersal (including boy racers) Reference Description S Summary of issue Summary of Response number DIS1. Email received on 12th October P Gathering crime statistics for two proposed PSPO Evidence provided - no Evidence 2015 at 11:47. Dispersal areas. response required. from Analyst To be used in final

2 Appendix A

PSPO Report. DIS2. Email Email received on 19th October CEnsuring access for emergency services in Confirmed that approval Cllr 2015 at 10:19. restricted access areas. of emergency services are sought prior to gating off an area. (Email 11.11.15) DIS3. Web Email received on 23rd September A Email supporting the PSPO order except the area Unable to respond (no Feedback 2015 at 12:05. Wshould include all of Mansfield. sender details) M However it is not possible to have district wide prohibitions for eg, dispersal or alcohol as there is no evidence of need. DIS4. Email Email received on 21st September B Operation conducted dealing with nuisance Evidence provided – no 2015 at 11:02. drivers. 5 warning notices were issued. response required. To be used in final PSPO Report.

Dog Access Restrictions (DCO) Reference Description S Summary of issue Summary of Response number Dog1. Club Email received on 19th October P response to PSPO consultation Awaiting advice from 2015 at 11:38. C Legal Dog2. Email Email received on 19th October CAppropriate circumstances to require owners to Advised of Cllr 2015 at 10:34. put dogs on leads. How non-police can require circumstances when name and address. accredited officers will require owners to put dogs on leads.

3 Appendix A

Information provided about CSAS. (Email 11.11.15) Dog3. Email Email received on 19th October CHow request to produce a receptacle for picking Advised the reasons this 2015 at 10:24. up dog faeces will work in practice. is proposed and why it will be helpful in tackling irresponsible dog owners who regularly fail to pick up after their dog(s). Dog4. Web Email received on 10th September A Disagree with it being an offence to not carry dog Unable to respond (no feedback 2015 at15:14. Wmess bags as dog owners shouldn’t have to walk sender details). Maround with pockets full of dog poo bags. However, it is not believed to be unreasonable to ask dog owners to carry one or two extra bags from what they would normally carry. Dog5. Web Email received on 11th September A PSPO supported but questions how to identify Unable to respond (no feedback at 13:17. Wwhether animals are ’worried’ and concerned that sender details). Mdeaf people are exempted from cleaning dog mess. Language is based upon historical legislation. The reference to a person who is deaf will be removed from the exemptions for dog fouling.

4 Appendix A

DPPOs Reference Description S Summary of issue Summary of Response number DPPO1. Email received on 15th October Whether PSPO will displace alcohol related Confirmed the PSPO in Email 2015 at 13:11. problems to Millennium Green. Dog mess the locality is only about concern at Millennium Green. changing legislation and the measures are already in place. Requested local Warden to make contact to agree action to tackle dog fouling issue. DPPO2. Email received on 19th August 2015 CMillennium Green and the park have no alcohol Forwarded the email Email at 18:00. restrictions. response

Gating Reference Description S Summary of issue Summary of Response number GAT1. Notts Document received on 16th October NPSPO is too: big, controlling and isn’t The PSPO is mostly LAF. 2015. enforceable. replacing current orders which will need to be changed over in 2017. In addition it includes new terms and it is more cost effective to do this is as one process. Residents and business affected have been

5 Appendix A

consulted and are all supportive of the proposal to restrict access in the new area and continue to restrict access introduced as part of Gating Orders. GAT2. Email Email received on 19th October CRestricted access and emergency services. Confirming that the Cllr 2015 at 10:19. Effect on how we deal with Travellers. Gating/Restricting Access will seek approval of Emergency Services. Advised PSPO has no effect on how we deal with unlawful traveller encampments.

General Reference Description S Summary of issue Summary of Response number GEN1. Email Email received on 23rd September A Email supporting the PSPO order except the It is not possible to have via web (see 2015 at 12:05. Wdispersal area should include all of Mansfield. a dispersal area which dispersing) M covers the whole of Mansfield District. GEN2. Web Email received on 01st October DPSPO is illiberal and unnecessary. No need to Letter sent in response. feedback 2015 at 13:35. Wcreate a criminal offence of smoking in Children should be able Mplaygrounds. Concerned about council officers to experience a smoke being able to enforce dispersal. Also about free environment at all offence of failing to carry a receptacle for dog times. Confirmation that

6 Appendix A

waste. it is only police accredited council officers who can enforce the dispersal and it will only be used if people are acting antisocially. Offence of failure to carry receptacle for dog waste will be used to set out the council’s expectations and to target individuals where we have evidence they are habitually failing to clear up their dog’s faeces. GEN3. Web Email received on 11th September A PSPO consultation approval. Unable to respond (no feedback 2015 at 09:58. W sender details). M Thank you for your support. GEN4. Email received on 12th September MPSPO consultation – formal police approval. Confirming support. Formal 2015 at 14:20. Police feedback GEN5. Web Email received on 14th September A PSPO consultation, disagrees with giving council Unable to respond (no feedback 2015 at 08:51. Wofficials this power and it is a cash cow for the sender details) Mcouncil. The council officers able to enforce the PSPO are limited to Neighbourhood

7 Appendix A

Wardens who are accredited by Nottinghamshire Police under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS). GEN6. PCC Email received on 20th October HPSPO consultation, agree with principles but Initial Community Safety email 2015 at 14:22. need to show evidence that it’s needed and have Manager’s report a consultation with the public. attached and further explanation given to all points raised.

Legal Highs Reference number De Submitted by S Specific considerations scr u ipti m on m a r y

8 Appendix A

s s u e NPS1. Email Trading Em Trading Standards Officer, Nottingham County Q The proposal to prohibit possession and/or Standards and Borough ail Council, Trading Standards u consumption by ingesting, inhaling, injecting or of Lambeth template rec e smoking Intoxicating Substances which is given eiv s the following definition “Substances with the ed t capacity to stimulate or depress the central on i nervous system” in the district of Mansfied was 08t o not included in the original draft PSPO. A further h n consultation period on this issue is to be arranged Se i which will provide an opportunity for more pte n discussion/information to be submitted on this mb g point. er 20 w 15 h at y 11: 25. M a n s f i e l d

9 Appendix A

n o t i n c l u d e d

d e a l i n g

w i t h

l e g a l

10 Appendix A

h i g h s

P S P O

p r o v i d i n g

11 Appendix A

i n f o r m a t i o n

f r o m

L a m b e t h

C o u n c i l

12 Appendix A

w h i c h

h a s . NPS2. Email NCC Em Community Safety Team, Nottinghamshire P Please see response to NPS1 above. community safety x2 inc ail County Council S 3x statement rec P eiv O ed on a 01st p Oct p ob l er i 20 c 15 a at t 09: i 49. o n , r e c o m

13 Appendix A

m e n d e d

a m e n d m e n t s . L e g a l h i g h

w i t n

14 Appendix A

s t a t e m e n t s . NPS3. Email Em Neighbourhood Warden Team Leader, I Please see response to NPS1 above. ail Mansfield District Council. n rec c eiv i ed d on e 05t n h t Oct o ob n er 20 1 15 8 at t 13: h 16. S e

15 Appendix A

p t e m b e r

2 0 1 5

w h e r e

m a l e

16 Appendix A

M C A T

B l a c k

M a m b a .