Parliamentary Briefing
Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
House of Commons Second Reading, 10th June 2013




Summary
Walking plays a vital role in people’s daily lives, yet people could miss out on its benefits
under new public spaces protection orders introduced by the Bill.
Gating orders –currently available to local authorities – already curtail local communities’
access to important paths and other rights of way.
The Ramblers support measures to tackle anti-social behaviour but believe public spaces
protection orders – as currently drafted – would further diminish such access and could fail to
effectively tackle anti-social behaviour.
The Bill must be amended, and regulations drafted, to provide the key checks and balances
necessary to secure a proportionate and effective approach towards tackling anti-social
behaviour and protecting vital local community assets.
Background




The Ramblers works to help everyone enjoy the pleasures and benefits of walking, and to enhance
and protect the places where people walk. Working together with our 115,000 members and our
17,000 volunteers we are committed to encouraging and supporting walking, protecting footpaths and
other rights of way, and protecting the beauty of the countryside and other areas.
Walking provides a wider range of public goods including:
o Supporting rural economies: in England: walkers spend over £6bn/year, supporting up to 245,000
full time jobs; in Scotland, people took over 384m recreation trips to the outdoors, spending
£2.8bn; in Wales walking contributes over £550m to the economy.
o Reducing healthcare costs: physical inactivity costs NHS England £1.8bn/year and the wider
economy £8bn/year; obesity costs the economy £16billion/year - if current trends continue, this
may rise to £50billion by 2050. Every £1 spent on a health walk scheme saves the local NHS £7.1
o Health benefits: walking offers an easy and accessible way to exercise regularly, improving
physical and mental health (improving mood and self-image, reducing anxiety and aiding sleep).2
o Social benefits: as a sociable, inclusive and free activity, walking helps improve our sense of
community, as well as tackle crime and the fear of crime through the ‘eyes on the street’ effect.
Children who walk to school have wider social networks than those who don’t.3
o Sustainable transport: walking helps cut carbon emissions, noxious fumes and noise pollution, is
an efficient use of public space, and improves access to public transport. If we all swapped one car
journey a week to walking, car traffic levels would reduce by at least 10%.4
The Government has a national ambition in England to bring about a year on year increase in physical
activity and a year on year decrease in the proportion of those classed as inactive.5 The National
Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has produced extensive official NHS guidance on
promoting physical activity including walking and cycling.6
This Bill tackles a wide range of issues. The Ramblers are concerned about the provisions set out in
Chapter 2 (Clauses 55 to 68) which provide for the making of public spaces protection orders, which
could result in popular walking routes being closed with little community consultation.
Gating orders


1
Gating orders were introduced under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (CNE) 2005,
which empowers local authorities to restrict access to certain highways, including public rights of way,
by means of installing fixed gates. Local authorities were granted these powers on the grounds of
crime reduction and to deal with problems of anti-social behaviour.
In the period between 2007 - 2011 over 1,700 gating orders were made, affecting more than 4,000
routes. These provisions allow for the effective and indefinite closure of public rights of way without the
opportunity for the objections of legitimate users of the way to be heard by an independent arbitrator.
Heron and Bradshaw , 2010
Department of Health 2004, Mind 2008, Walking the Way to Health 2009
3
Walk to School, 2008
4
Sustrans, 2009
5
Department of Health, 2012
6
NICE, 2012
2


There are many examples of local authorities introducing gating orders despite strong opposition from
local communities and scant evidence of their effectiveness. These include:
o A 500 year old path in Liverpool, gated despite a 700-name petition from residents seeking to
avoid a 40 minute detour via main roads to reach a park.
o A path in Bristol, used by an exceptionally high number of pedestrians (2,700/month over a three
month period). Many of these journeys were made by mothers and young children using a safe
route away from traffic, the alternative being an extra 385 metres on roadside pavements.
o A well-used path in Tameside which provided a short cut between two streets, and was a route to
a school. An earlier attempt to close this route under alternative legislation was dismissed by a
Planning Inspector who commented: “excluding children going to and from school, the path is
probably used, at a conservative estimate, by around 250 people each day between 9am and
5pm.This figure is probably more than double if these children are included.”
The Ramblers expressed concerns at the introduction of gating orders during the passage of the CNE
Bill. Following their introduction we campaigned with local communities to for the regulations to be
amended to allow for objections to be heard by an independent arbitrator.
Public spaces protection orders




PSPOs will replace gating orders and other anti-social behaviour measures (e.g. designated public
place orders; dog control orders). Gating orders were only applicable to linear routes and infringement
was not an offence (the way in question was physically gated). PSPOs will be available for use on any
public place, so encompassing linear routes and places which cannot be physically closed off (e.g.
town or village greens, registered commons) and it will be a criminal offence to infringe them.
PSPOs can be applied to routes used regularly by members of the public in order to access local
amenities; vital routes could be closed off without proper consultation with the local community.
The Ramblers support efforts to reduce crime and tackle anti-social behaviour. We appreciate the need
to consolidate and simplify the range of measures available to tackle it, and we acknowledge that in
some circumstances this may include restricting public access. In addition we accept there are many
locations where such restrictions do not impact on routes in regular public use.
However we remain concerned about the closure of paths and land used and valued by local
communities. The need to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour must not come at the expense of
people’s rights to public access. Furthermore, introducing a PSPO to a location can risk tackling the
symptom rather than the cause as well as simply move the problem on elsewhere.
Safer communities; safer pedestrians

The Ramblers believes the Bill can be amended, and regulations drafted, so that routes and land which
are important to the public are protected without undermining the effectiveness of the provisions to
tackle anti-social behaviour. We urge the government to introduce effective checks to the wide-ranging
order-making powers which are being proposed. These amendments must include:
o Definition of ‘public places’: this should be much more narrowly defined so that orders cannot be
applied to common land, access land and town and village greens (Clause 67(1)).
o Duration of PSPOs: these need to be shortened, and made the subject of mandatory review after
six months—three years is far too long (Clause 56).
o Consultation requirements: these should be clarified and extended. E.g. regulations should provide
for certain prescribed organisations and Local Access Forums to be consulted (Clause 60(2)(a)).
o Rights of way: The regulations specified in clause 61(1) should be used to specify that PSPOs
cannot be used to restrict access to ways which are shown as public rights of way in definitive
maps and statements.
o Challenging the validity of orders: The procedures governing this are unnecessarily restrictive there are no other means of formally objecting to an order. Expensive High Court challenges are
beyond most people, although they may seek the help from organisations such as the Ramblers.
Under the Bill as drafted we would not have the locus to take on such a case (Clause 62).
o Independent arbitrator: Objections or representations to an order should be being heard by a party
independent of the order-making authority (e.g. a planning inspector).
o Other measures to tackle ASB: Before making an order, the order-making authority should be
required to consider any other measures that have been, or could be, taken to alleviate the
problems of anti-social behaviour in the locality.
Further information
Janet Davis, Senior Policy Officer, 020 7339 8538, janet.davis@ramblers.org.uk
This briefing is also supported by the British Mountaineering Council, https://thebmc.co.uk