A controversial Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), approved by Thanet council on Thursday 25 July has been sent back to Cabinet members for re-examination.
Councillors on the overview and scrutiny committee discussed the new PSPO, which is a combined order made up of a previous order focused on alcohol and another one related to antisocial behaviour.
However, the new PSPO has faced a legal challenge from the Free Speech Union which says there are issues with the wording of the PSPO and also with the consultation that was carried out in May.
The decision was called in to the scrutiny panel by chairman Cllr Phil Fellows due to the council receiving a letter under the pre-action protocol for judicial review from the Free Speech Union (FSU). The FSU said it would apply to judicially review the PSPO decision.
Consultation and order ‘flaws’
The FSU says the consultation was inadequate, the decision was made without councillors accessing all the evidence, the order breaches Human Rights legislation for freedom of expression and assembly, it is unlawful because it does not define the activities that are being prohibited and covers a wide area rather than targeting trouble hotspots.
Speaking at the scrutiny panel meeting last night Steven O’Grady, for the FSU, said: “We do not object to PSPOs as a concept, they are a fantastic tool for local authorities to use to combat problems that are in the area.”
But, he said the FSU believed Thanet’s new PSPO “may be unlawful” and the consultation process was inadequate.
He said sufficient information was not given during the consultation process for people to make an informed decision for their responses and there was no explanation of the reasons for implementing it. He also highlighted that Cabinet members were not told of the FSU response to the consultation and so made a decision without all the relevant information.
On the order itself, Mr O’Grady said it breached human rights for gathering and freedom of expression, potentially criminalising peaceful protests and was too vague in what was actually being prohibited, leaving it open to individual interpretation for enforcement and leaving people unclear about what behaviour was being banned.
He also said the FSU believed the order was too wide, taking in all of Ramsgate, Margate, Broadstairs and Birchington, questioning how it would be possible that antisocial behaviour was happening in “every side street and park” of the four areas.
He added: “We are very serious in our opposition to this order. We mean business with our letter and intend to continue with our course of action.”
Concerns
Thanet council’s monitoring officer Ingrid Brown told councillors it was not for them to consider whether the order was ‘lawful’ but if they had concerns then it could be sent back to Cabinet members.
Cllr Becky Wing (Green) said she found combining the two previous PSPOs to be sensible although there were concerns about whether there were enough staff for the order to be enforced.
She criticised the FSU, saying: “The FSU makes assumptions that enforcement officers and police cannot make judgements about who to tell off for swearing etc. I make the assumption that our enforcement officers and police know how to deal with these situations, to de-escalate and disperse.”
Cllr Wing said any issues could be resolved through training. She also highlighted the problem of street drinkers in Ramsgate, saying: “Some sit in a quiet corner and are no harm to anybody. But we have a hard core of people that for some reason we cannot engage. We are encouraging residents to report (issues) to police.”
She said this stopped crimes but also gave an opportunity for officers to engage with the people involved and offer services that could help change their behaviour. She said this was a positive aspect of having the PSPO.
Cllr Wing expressed anger at the FSU saying she felt councillors were “being bullied” and that Mr O’Grady is: “not living here, not on our streets and not on our beaches” and noted there were no residents bringing objections in the council chamber.
Cllr Joanne Bright was equally critical, saying she was “baffled” by the legal challenge and asked why the FSU was raising the issue now when the council had PSPOs in place since 2018. She also questioned how many times the FSU would threaten legal action against amended PSPOs.
Cllr John Davis said he backed the proposal to send the PSPO “back to the drawing board” saying although it was a useful tool, it had to be “fit for purpose.”
Questions were raised over why Birchington was included in the order, with ward councillors saying it wasn’t needed there.
Chairman Phil Fellows said the PSPO was needed but “what we don’t need is a Judicial Review that will cost £100,000.”
Legal issues relating to the PSPO and the FSU challenge were discussed after exclusion of press and public.
It was noted that the monitoring officer had noticed deficiencies in the drafting of the order and advised sending it back to Cabinet members for discussion.
The PSPO is currently not in force because it was called in for further scrutiny.
Return to Cabinet
Councillors agreed to a suggestion by Cllr David Green that the PSPO decision be returned to Cabinet, saying the panel: “Support the aim of the PSPO and consider it necessary in some areas,” but added there were: “concerns that some aspects of the PSPO may be open to question and Cabinet look again to ensure it can be smoothly implemented.”
What does the PSPO include
The PSPO, which is due to be in force for one year, covers Birchington, Margate, Ramsgate and Broadstairs. It includes a reference to ‘foul language’ saying: “all persons are prohibited from using foul or abusive language in such a manner that is loud and can be heard by others and cause either alarm or distress to any other person in any public place,” which has caused considerable debate.
Thanet council says: “The restriction included in the PSPO does not relate to swearing in general. It refers specifically to foul language that causes alarm or distress to other people. “This is not a new restriction, it has been in place since 2018 when the Antisocial Behaviour PSPO was first introduced.”
The order would also prohibit behaviour such as congregating in “anti-social” groups that are “abusive, alarming, threatening, insulting, intimidating, harassing, distressing or otherwise causing a disturbance to other members of the public”.
Causing a “nuisance, harassment, alarm or distress” when consuming alcohol would also be banned, as would using a public space in a way that is not “in accordance with its intended use”.
Excreting bodily fluids in public, in a way that could cause alarm or distress, would also be covered by the order.
Offenders could face fines of up to £100, reduced to £60 if paid within two weeks.
Cabinet members will discuss the concerns raised about the PSPO at a meeting tomorrow (August 22).
