Written by Liam White, Students’ Union President
As students of the University of Surrey, and as residents of Guildford, we are keen to see our public spaces kept safe. However the proposed additions to the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) by Guildford Borough Council (GBC) are concerningly vague, and can be misinterpreted in a way that can be detrimental to local students accessing the affected areas (town centre, Stoke Park, and the Mount). Under a PSPO, individuals deemed to be breaching the order can be asked to change their behaviour by police officers, PCSOs, or GBC compliance officers. Fines and written warnings can be given for repeated breaches.
As Students’ Union President and as a leading voice for our 17,000 students I believe it’s vital that changes to public spaces consider the perspective of our student community. The first proposed addition adds “wearing a piece of clothing with the intent to obscure or hide his/her identity for the purposes of committing crime and/or anti-social behaviour” as a restriction. A challenge with each of these proposed extensions is the term ‘intent’, and the broad remit it gives for enforcement of the order. This is particularly concerning for members of the community who wear clothing that covers their face or hair for religious purposes. We question how appropriate it is to be enforcing restrictions on clothing, rather than other indicators of anti-social behaviour.
The second restriction details the use of “dangerous or anti-social use of vehicles, including bicycles, skateboards or scooters in pedestrianised areas”. Many students shared with me their concerns about where the line is drawn on “anti-social” use of vehicles, given some of Guildford community’s resistance to the Beryl Bike scheme. The fear is that Guildford’s infrastructure for safe bike travel is already limited (take the University to town centre route, for example), and that such an extension to the PSPO can disincentive people from using sustainable travel opportunities. It would be worth clarifying how this order will relate to GBC’s sustainable travel plans.
The final restriction to comment on about “joining or remaining in a group of 2 or more people which is acting in a manner that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person”. Once again, we are concerned by the overly conditional phrasing of “acting in a manner that is likely to cause” and the vague nature of “distress”. This feels like an extremely broad scope to enforce, given that members of the public may potentially be “distressed” when encountering young adults socialising in public, even if it is not disorderly or anti-social. This extension is not phrased in a way that prevents groups acting disorderly – it instead relies purely on a member of the public claiming to be distressed or alarmed, which is an unreasonable ground to potentially penalise members of the public for. This is especially true for our student community who utilise the social spaces offered by town centre.
These measures are unspecific in their wording, allowing them an extremely broad remit that could lead to inappropriate enforcement. As students would like to see the aims of these extensions clarified, and specific to the antisocial behaviours that they are trying to mitigate. I have formally submitted this feedback to the Guildford Borough Council website, as part of their consultation for this proposal.
