Annex B – Survey comments

· This 'consultation is as vague and loosely worded (though differently worded) as the paper that launched the consultation. Everyone would no doubt agree that it might be nice to control or reduce some of the above but there is no clarity as to how these powers could be used and the potentially authoritarian nature of some of them.

We need consultation on the exact proposed wording of the PSPO.

You should also ensure that nothing in the PSPO overlaps with existing legal powers that could be used anyway eg. with respect to sexual harrassment.

The third point referring to 'causing alarm or distress to anyone' is far too sweeping, loosely worded and open to subjective interpretation.

The point about temporary structures (which wasn't mentioned in the paper) in also incredibly vague and along with the 'causing alarm or distress to anyone' could be used to prevent legitimate public protest in our city centre.

The point about obstructing public footpaths and highways has been changed from the wording in the paper but is no clearer. There is already law against obstructing the highway. In addition there is still no clarity as to where people who might be moved under this clause would be moved to?

Our city centre is a PUBLIC space as much for civic society as for financial/commercial gain and it is the council's responsibility to make sure it 'belongs' to everyone.

Not sure why urination has been mentioned - don't we already have that city wide PSPO?

These proposals are still ill-thought out and need far more clarity."

· NONE

· Amplification by Buskers in the area by the Belfry and Minster's West door can be very disturbing and make my flat's terrace and its sitting room unusable. Have to move to bedroom to be able to read serious book for instance and cannot play my own music.

· I believe such an introduction would make York more attractive, safer, cleaner for all who live, work and visit.

Noise is a major concern for elderly people who find it intimidating and stops people enjoying living and visiting the city.  Please consider noise reduction.  I am often shouted out to asking for money by the street beggars and it makes me feel fearful and worried.

· Speaking as a long term resident of Union Terrace who lives very near the hostel in the car park, I have to wonder what impression coach visitors get when their first experience of York is extreme ASB behaviour from it’s residents. The stags and hens can be bad, the street drinkers can be even worse. I massively support the PSPO, as do my neighbours.

· Each in turn:

- banning public drinking is an unreasonable response to a small minority who cause problems, the terms of the existing PSPO (cease drinking or surrender alcohol when asked) are a suitable compromise between those who cause problems and the rights of the law abiding majority.

- it is unreasonable for the council to impose an order which includes ""urination or defecation in a public place that is not a public convenience"" when there are no such public conveniences open within the proposed PSPO area. A more suitable approach to this problem would be to work with perhaps York BID to open a couple of the public conveniences within the proposed PSPO area beyond the currently 6 or 7pm closing times, with security staff present.

- the inclusion of ""put up temporary structures"" appears to be an attempt to ban the homeless from being in the area. As other councils have found this can easily turn into a public relations disaster, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation (which I am not aware of) such a public relations situation will not be good for York."

· The main issue for me is the lack of a visible police presence in the centre of York. On two occasions recently I've looked for a police officer with no luck when I have witnessed dangerous behaviour.

· I am really encouraged to see that the council are planning to address the increasing levels of anti-social behaviour in the city centre.  Like many local residents, I avoid the city centre on weekend evenings and race days, and would recommend that visitors with children do the same.  This is a great pity, as we live in a beautiful city which should be welcoming to all. 

I fully support any positive action to address street begging in particular, as this has become much more of an concern in recent years.  Stag and hen parties have long been an issue, so it would be good to see local agencies getting more powers to prevent them ruining the city centre for others. "

· As a resident of York for over 60 years u now find it easier to visit other nearby towns to shop as they have a wider variety of shops. In my opinion York has become a coffee shop/ restaurant town to visit Esther than shop for goods.

· I've not experienced any anti social behaviour in the last 12 months because I don't like coming into the centre as ii currently is.

· Enforce measures for racegoers and hen/stag groups. They cause majority of problems for local residents.

· Please get rid of the worst excesses of the hen and stag dos. We've almost stopped taking our children into the city centre because of them.

· "12 moths"? You need to spell check your webpage!

· Drinking Alcohol - There was a PSPO for this area between 2022 and 2025, this was allowed to lapse by City of York Council. If this was an issue this could have been extended but was not. Therefore there must be evidence of this being an issue between the lapse of the old PSPO and now to demonstrate that there is sufficient justification and necessity for this condition to be imposed. In addition this condition is an escalation of the previous requirement to surrender alcohol and therefore it would be necessary not only to demonstrate that the previous PSPO was necessary (presumably by renewing it and varying it) but that those powers were not sufficient to deal with the problem. I would ask that the record of the number of times that surrender was requested, non-compliance and number of times fixed penalties and prosecutions were imposed is considered. Taking Drugs - Possession of drugs is illegal and can be dealt with under the Misuse of Drugs Act, PSPO's should not be used where there are already legislative powers available to deal with an issue. If someone is taking drugs there is sufficient evidence for the police to arrest on suspicion that they might be in possession. Perhaps enforcement of legislation in place currently is a more effective use of resources rather than introducing new powers and shifting responsibility from the police to local government? Harassment - there are laws against this in relation to public order and protection from harassment see above. Verbal insults and sexualised comments - again public order offence and therefore conditions for PSPO would be unlawful. loud amplified sounds which could reasonably cause annoyance - amplifiers in the street at night are prohibited by the control of pollution act 1974 Section 62, Is there sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Community Protection Notices are insufficient to deal with this issue and making it necessary for the condition to be in place? Urinating or defecating in a public place - there is already a PSPO in place that covers this? - Engaging in ASB or obstructing footpaths -  These are two separate conditions ASB there are powers available to disperse already are these not sufficient? Under the Highways Act 1980 Section 137 already creates an offence of obstructing a highway, therefore this is not necessary. Erecting temporary structures is covered by Section 148 of the Highways Act 1980 already. Selling of merchandise is covered by the Pedlars Act 1871. Sell goods or collect money on behalf of a charity - Should a condition be proposed the authority would need to consult the Fundraising Regulator and the Institute of Fundraising (IoF)'s in regards to alleged breaches of the Code of Fundraising Practice. Collecting money on behalf of a registered charity is not an unreasonable activity that justifies the restriction. Should individual charities be failing to comply with the code of fundraising practice this should be referred to the regulator.

· Include into the 'Make verbal insults, including sexualised comments and gestures' carrying phallic/sexualised objects i.e inflatable xxxxxx

· I met a couple in Middleborough who used to enjoy coming to York for a visit at weekends. They no longer come because of the loud and offensive behaviour in central York. This applied both to the so-called 'hen parties' and the race-goers. The last time I was in York on a summer weekend I was appalled.