|
On 22 July 2025 Cabinet:-
(i) Noted this report and the outcome of the public consultation;
(ii) Considered the information below when formulating a decision based on the information in the report;
· The statutory duty of the local authority to protect residents from noise nuisance.
· The next consideration is to determine if the council wants to protect the impact on other users of the streets or the businesses trading.
· The consultation is a consultation and not a vote as to whether the action is correct or proportionate. All views expressed have been taken into account but that does not mean that the council must or should take a course of action simply because that is what the majority of respondents support.
·There are many more people who live outside of the area than live or work within the area. Therefore, it is always possible that the consultation will be skewed. It is possible for responders never to visit Birmingham and indeed may not live in the UK (as has occurred previously). The people most adversely affected by the noise in the areas of the proposed PSPO are those who live and work there.
· The Council is therefore entitled to consider the proposed action and to give different “weight” to any comments it receives.
· Ultimately consultation is not about doing what the majority thinks but about finding out what different people think before making a decision. The Council are not bound to go with the majority having taken their views into account, but it does need to consider their views before deciding what to do. If the Council is minded to disagree with the majority of respondents, then it should explain why it decided to recommend the proposed action.
(iii) Approved to declaring the PSPO as consulted and detailed in Appendix A to the report (despite the consultation not being in favour of the declaration);
(iv) Agreed the following justifications towards this decision;
a. That the Environmental Health Officers are satisfied residents do experience a statutory noise nuisance at their properties.
b. The Council is under a legal duty to protect residents from noise nuisance.
c. That the human rights of all parties have been considered, and the residents have an overwhelming right under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the protection of the PSPO, which is not as persuasive for those on the street.
d. It is therefore unlikely that not declaring the PSPO is a long-term solution, if noise levels continue unchecked.
e. That the Equality impact Assessment identifies that although there may be some minor impact on groups with protected characteristics, there is a significant benefit to residents and that this PSPO supports their human rights.
f. That although some may busk or preach sensibly, officers have been totally unable to manage the noise environment in areas where there is no PSPO and indeed actions to control noise has been met with aggression and volumes being increased.
g. The city centre is now mixed-use following changes to planning laws and further residential developments will be made in the city centre in the next few months and years.
h. Businesses have made significant numbers of complaints, and this is an opportunity to protect businesses from excessive noise.
i. That preachers will not be stopped from gathering or preaching in line with their human rights but will be prevented from using amplified equipment, musical instruments or other items used as musical instruments within the restricted area.
j. That the previous two noise PSPOs have been effective in protecting residents.
(v) Agreed that officers should explore the feasibility of a consent/permitting scheme for busking in the city centre; and
(vi) Agreed that officers review any relevant policies related to Council permitted events in the PSPO declared area, to support alignment with the objective of reducing excessive noise in the city centre.
THE DEADLINE FOR CALL IN IS 1600 HOURS ON MONDAY 28 JULY 2025.
|