Campaigner ANDY STRANGEWAY picks the drivel out of the Hambleton District Council Cabinet Report addressing the unenforceable Public Spaces protection Order (PSPO) at Leeming Bar.

~~~~~

Leeming Bar Parking Ban – Extension Recommended

It will come as no surprise that Steven Lister, Hambleton District Council (HDC) Director of Leisure and Communities is attempting to convince HDC Cabinet that he is right in relation to the Leeming Bar Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) and the law is wrong.

On Tuesday, the Cabinet will consider the report by our Steven Agenda Item 4 (click on the link to read the full report).

I note the following with comments (in blue italics):

• Note 1 – 1.4 – The Council has chosen not to exercise its power to issue any fixed penalty notices during the initial 6 month period. – This is false. HDC stated that the £6,800 cost of the PSPO would be financed by the issuing of 68 £100 Fixed Penalty Notices. If the new order is approved the cost will escalate to over £20,000 of wasted taxpayers’ resources. This does not include the considerable cost of Officers time.
• Note 2 – 1.7 – Following consultation, the proposal is to amend the restricted area covered by the Public Space Protection Order to exclude the field known as Roughly Corner Farm. – Is this because the site is under investigation? (click on the link to read)
• Note 3 – 5.1 – The Council has taken independent legal advice to ensure that all foreseeable legal requirements have been considered and that the proposed variations to the Order are reasonable in attempting to address the anti-social behaviour at Leeming Bar Industrial Estate referred to in the report. –  So why do HDC state “Disclosure of the information could also impact on the Council’s position in any legal proceedings seeking to challenge the validity of the PSPO and/or in any future prosecutions.”?
• Note 4 – 5.18 – North Yorkshire County Council, as the local highway authority, has been consulted and considers the signs relating to the Public Space Protection Order to be public notices and not traffic signs.   Although the intended purpose and effect of the Order is to restrict the parking of certain classifications of vehicle overnight, it is not a Traffic Regulation Order made under the powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA as amended) that would require the restriction to be signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016).  As the Public Space Protection Order is made under different (non-highway) legislation the RTRA 1984 and TSRGD 2016 are not the relevant documents specifying the terms of its signing. – On December 17 the NYCC Officer who made this statement, David Kirkpatrick, Traffic Engineering Team Leader confirmed he would review this (Recording of the phone call with David can be heard below). The review is still outstanding.
• Note 5 – Page 53 – Appendix 3 – Multiple notices on floor around industrial estate. – The actions of HDC resulted in a breach of the Environmental Protection Act and as such must never be repeated. This also demonstrates that HDC is being laughed at.
• Note 6 – Page 64 – Appendix 6 – Inspector Sarah Sanderson responded “I am of the strong opinion that this PSPO must continue”. – No North Yorkshire Police Officer should ever condone actions that breach legislation. As this PSPO breaches legislation I will register a formal complaint against the Inspector and request that legal advice is sought before they revisit their submission.
• Note 7 – Page 71 – Religion or belief – There is no evidence to suggest the religion or belief of the driver would be affected by the order. – This is false as it would affect my belief (click on the link to read) and HDC are fully aware of this. In addition, it will affect those who are Vegans.
• Note 8 – Page 81 – Appendix 10 – No Action Enforcement options shall not be considered where there is no evidence available to identify the likely perpetrator. – This statement confirms no enforcement action will be taken – HGV drivers are behind curtains, motorhomers have curtains drawn and I am inside a sleeping bag. To take photos of anyone in their “bedroom” could result in legal action for sexual offences against the photographer. This could result in being placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

I have informed HDC Cabinet of all of the above.

Bottom Line

The bottom line is that HDC must successfully prosecute Strangeway in a Court of Law as without which the PSPO is null and void.

Guest Author ANDY STRANGEWAY continues to debunk the unenforceable Leeming Bar PSPO.

~~~~~

Leeming Bar  PSPO: Truckers Knife Crime Victims

I am shocked to learn that Leeming Bar Truckers on 27 November became victims of knife crime on Leeming Bar Industrial Estate.

NB: Tutin Road is on Leeming Bar Industrial Estate

The attack happened hours after the Northern Echo reported the delay until January by Hambleton District Council’s Cabinet to consider amending an overnight parking ban at Leeming Bar Industrial Estate.

Please read – Northern Echo report (click on the link to read). 

Hambleton District Council Director Incites Hatred

On 18 November, in Leeming Bar Parking Ban – Bad Cop Director (click on the link to read), I advised that  Steven Lister, Director of Leisure and Communities that he was “clearly inciting hatred against a group of hard-working people”.

I recommend that  Steven Lister, Hambleton District Council and all Councillors now consider their actions in this – or do we have to wait until someone is knifed? 

Moving Forward

Especially given this escalation, Hambleton District Council must not condone or encourage such acts of violence by amending the Leeming Bar overnight parking ban.

Time to get a grip before someone is killed.

Readers are left to place the protagonists in the context of news articles.

Enjoy!

[Satire] ]]> http://nyenquirer.uk/leeming-bar-pspo-folly-56800-wasted/ Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:00:15 +0000 http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=23416 Leeming Bar PSPO Folly – £56,800 Wasted

Guest Author ANDY STRANGEWAY exposes another farcical deployment of a useless but very expensive PSPO – this time at Hambleton District Council. Arrogant stupidity, incompetence, waste.

~~~~~

To date, the Hambleton District Council (HDC) Leeming Bar Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) has wasted over £56,800 of taxpayers resources and still, those behind this act of incompetence are embarked on wasting more money.

The initial process cost £6,800. There was then to be a six-week “education phase”, after which HDC would issue £100 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) to those who parked overnight.

As can be seen from the table above, HDC failed to issue a single FPN but instead issued leaflets. The reason they did not issue over 500 £100 FPNs after the education phase is that the original PSPO was unenforceable. So instead of admitting this, HDC in their perverse form of wisdom, continued to pay a company to hand out leaflets.

This has resulted in over £50,000 of lost revenue. In total, a minimum of £56,800 has been wasted.

Environmental Protection Act 1990

One of the fundamental reasons given for the PSPO is litter. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 – 89 (1) states:

• “It shall be the duty of each local authority to ensure that the land is, so far as is practicable, kept clear of litter.”

This applies to HDC in relation to the area covered by the Leeming Bar PSPO.

Their own evidence confirms the fact that litter is left unaddressed. The practicable solution is to erect litter bins in the locations of the PSPO signs. £56,800 would pay for 142 litter bins.

HDC has wasted over £56,800 because they have failed to fulfil their statutory duty. This is breath-taking.

I have registered a formal complaint against HDC for their failure to fulfil their duty as per the EPA 1990.

Insanity Continues

Now the fools are attempting a second consultation on a PSPO that is unlawful. How much will this cost? How can a Government body consult on that which is unlawful?

Given the conduct of HDC, I will not be taking part in the consultation as experience confirms the approach of HDC to feedback.

Prior to the consultation closure, I will serve formal notice on HDC.

If HDC introduce a new PSPO, I reserve my right to undertake appropriate and lawful actions.

Guest Author ANDY STRANGEWAY piles on the agony. The SBC Car Cruising PSPO is unenforceable on several grounds (three so far and more to come) – which perhaps explains why no Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) have been issued. It is all down to the form of words. Rather obviously, no Council can enact a PSPO that prohibits a lawful act or a fundamental right.

~~~~

Scarborough PSPO Denies The Right To Self Defence

Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) previously ignored evidence submitted in my complaint that the SBC Car Cruising PSPO restricts the public right of way over a highway in breach of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 – 65 – 1 which confirms:

• “A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway.”

Now Lisa Dixon has finally acknowledged the evidence but is claiming that the PSPO is not restricting the public right of way over a highway.

“The PSPO does not restrict the public right of way over the highway, it allows enforcement action to be taken if a person is guilty of an offence under Part 2 of the order.”

I refer everyone to 1.15 of the SBC – Car Cruising PSPO which lists the “prohibited activities”:

1.15 The “Prohibited Activities” are:

(a) causing danger or risk of injury to road users (including pedestrians);
(b) causing damage or risk of damage to property;
(c) speeding or racing;
(d) performing stunts;
(e) sounding horns or playing music so as to cause a nuisance;
(f) using foul or abusive language;
(g) using threatening or intimidating behaviour; or
(h) causing obstruction (whether moving or stationary).

All eight are restricting the public right of way over the highway. Indeed, I refer SBC to a recent case highlighted by Humberside Police.

“We are warning drivers in our area of an incident that was reported to us in the early hours of this morning” (Monday 23 September).

A man reported that he was driving a VW Caddy along Old Road in Leconfield when he came across what looked like a road traffic collision.

A motorcyclist was laid in the road with another man looking after him. The driver stopped and opened his window to ask if he could assist at which point one of the men is alleged to have assaulted the driver and the other stole two mobile phones from within the van by opening the passenger door.

The driver drove quickly away from the scene and reported the incident to us. He has been left with a serious wound to his arm which needed hospital treatment.

Detective Inspector Andy Crawforth said, “We have launched investigation into this incident and are obtaining a statement from the victim to establish the full circumstances. I would like to appeal for witnesses to the incident or for anyone who saw anyone acting suspiciously in the area. The victim said that the men spoke with Liverpool accents and that he may have injured one as he drove away”.

The gentleman exercised his legal right to self-defence and undertook activities that are restricted by the SBC Car Cruising PSPO.

No PSPO should ever prevent the use of self-defence yet the SBC – Car Cruising PSPO does just that. The PSPO restricts lawful activities on a public right of way.

I request all SBC Group Leaders to ensure that this unlawful PSPO is revoked as it unlawfully restricts the public right of way over the highway.

Every British citizen has the right to self-defence including on a public right of way. This cannot and must not be prevented.

Oops! It would appear that Mrs DIXON’s SBC Legal & Democratic Services department has dropped another costly gaffe. Scarborough Borough Council has received a challenge to the legal status and enforceability of its ‘Car Cruising’ Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).

Reproduced with the kind consent of the author, ANDY STRANGEWAY:

——– Original Message ——–

Dear Lisa,

Could I please refer you to the attached? [see photos, below]

The Scarborough Borough Council (SBC) Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) prohibiting car cruising has a major flaw that prevents lawful enforcement.

Enforcement Flaw

Regulations under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Police Act 2014 state that there should be sufficient signage in the area of the PSPO to draw attention to those using the area, setting out the effect of the Order. The Order must also be published on the Council’s website. The signage in the area does not necessarily need to set out all the provisions of the Order, but rather state where this information can be found.

Signage for the PSPO is displayed on the highway (the highway includes the road, footpath and grass verge).

As the signage is not permitted signage within the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD2016), no enforcement can take place. This is because the signs cannot be displayed on the highway, but sufficient signage must be displayed for all PSPOs.

Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016

The purpose of the TSRGD2016 is to ensure that all signage on the highway delivers an unambiguous and speedily understood message for obvious reasons.

Every sign on the highway must be contained in the TSRGD2016 or be approved by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State cannot approve any signage that does not deliver an unambiguous and speedily understood message.

Overexuberant Local Authorities

Local Authorities, including SBC, have become overexuberant in their use of PSPOs. They regularly fail to remember the intention of Parliament when they passed legislation that permitted the introduction of PSPOs.

They are orders to protect public spaces like children’s play areas and parks, not the highway. Hence the name. The TSRGD2016 does not apply to children’s play areas and parks.

Complaint – Action Required

Could I please register a formal complaint with SBC for erecting unpermitted signage on the public highway and request the removal of such signage at the earliest opportunity.

In addition, SBC must reimburse any Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) issued and cease the issuing of FPN for the PSPO as to do so would be a fraud.

Regards,

Andy Strangeway