Havering Council Proposes Borough-Wide PSPO Restrictions: Community Response, Havering 2026

Key Points

• Consultation Launched: Havering Council is holding a borough-wide consultation on their proposals for the introduction of Public Space Protection Order, which covers all types of public behaviors.
• Feeding Wildlife: There are concerns about the council’s plan to ban people from feeding wildlife or leaving food in public places because of the nuisance caused by animals.
• Amplified Sound: There have been concerns expressed by the residents over the plans of measures which can affect the amplified sound in street entertainment, busking, and public speaking.
• Other Restrictions: Other types of restrictive measures include alcohol consumption, dog fouling, aggressive begging, antisocial use of e-scooters, public urination, projectile devices, and face coverings, used to conceal identities in anti-social behavior.
• Council Emphasizes That There Are No Decisions Yet: Havering Council has stated that there are no decisions yet.

Havering (East London Times) September 1, 2026 – Havering Council has formally initiated a public consultation regarding a proposed borough-wide Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO). The initiative has sparked immediate debate across the local community, with residents, campaigners, and volunteer organisations raising questions over how the broad powers might be interpreted and enforced across the borough’s public areas.

What Are the Key Restrictions Included in the Council’s Proposed PSPO?

The draft PSPO presented by Havering Council encompasses a comprehensive list of public space restrictions designed to curb anti-social behaviour, improve public hygiene, and enhance safety. According to official consultation details published by Havering Council, the proposed measures address multiple categories of activity within the borough’s boundaries:

• Wildlife Management: Preventing individuals from feeding wildlife or leaving food in public areas where it causes environmental damage, public health issues, nuisance, or attracts vermin.
• Alcohol and Public Disturbance: Restrictions on public alcohol consumption linked to anti-social behaviour, alongside measures targeting public urination and defecation.
• Street Activity and Public Speaking: Controls on amplified street entertainment, busking, and public speaking that cause nuisance, harassment, alarm, or distress.
• Vehicles and Devices: Regulating the anti-social use of bicycles, e-scooters, and the operation of projectile devices in public zones.
• Public Identity: Prohibiting specific face coverings when worn deliberately to conceal identity while engaging in or intending to cause harassment, alarm, or distress.
• General Anti-Social Behaviour: Measures tackling aggressive or persistent begging, dog fouling, irresponsible dog ownership, and group gatherings causing public nuisance or criminal activity.

Havering Council has stated that the primary objective of the proposed order is to create cleaner, safer, and more welcoming environments for all members of the public.

Why Has the Wildlife Feeding Clause Generated Specific Community Resistance?

The specific provision concerning wildlife feeding has emerged as a central point of friction among local community groups. During recent summer months, the borough experienced prolonged periods of dry weather, resulting in depleted natural water sources and parched grasslands. Volunteer groups, including Harold Hill Deer Aid, actively intervened during these weather conditions by supplying food and water to local deer populations and other wildlife across green spaces.

Supporters of these volunteer efforts argue that human intervention was critical to the survival of local animals during periods of environmental stress. Representatives from local wildlife assistance networks have questioned whether well-intentioned residents providing food or water to struggling animals could be inadvertently penalised under the terms of a borough-wide order.

The text of the proposed order specifies that the restriction targets feeding that leads to nuisance, public health risks, or vermin attraction. However, residents and local wildlife advocates have expressed concern over how enforcement officers will distinguish between irresponsible food dumping and targeted, responsible animal care.

How Might the Restrictions Impact Freedom of Speech and Public Demonstrations?

Beyond environmental and wildlife concerns, the proposed PSPO contains language addressing amplified sound, busking, and public speaking. The draft terms seek to restrict amplified sound and public address where it causes harassment, alarm, distress, or unreasonable nuisance to nearby residents and businesses.

While the consultation documents do not state or imply an explicit ban on peaceful assembly, political campaigning, or democratic protest, legal commentators and local residents have raised questions regarding the practical enforcement of such clauses. Concerns center on whether the broad definition of “nuisance” or “distress” could be applied to curtail legitimate public speeches, union demonstrations, or community rallies held within the borough’s public squares.

Council representatives have clarified that PSPOs are designed to address targeted anti-social behavior rather than lawful democratic expression. Nonetheless, community groups have signaled that they will seek written guarantees and clearer definitions within the final text to ensure peaceful assembly remains protected.

Explore More Havering Council News

Havering Council Launches Consultation for Borough-Wide PSPO: Havering 2026

Havering Council Refuses HMO Applications in Romford 2026

Background to the Development

Public Spaces Protection Orders were created under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, granting local authorities in England and Wales the power to implement restrictions on specific activities within a defined geographic area. To enact a PSPO, a council must demonstrate that the targeted behaviour has a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, is persistent or continuing in nature, and is unreasonable.

Havering’s green infrastructure has increasingly come under focus due to broader urban development proposals within the borough. Portions of local green space and former agricultural land have been subject to planning applications, including major commercial developments and proposed data centres. Against this backdrop of shrinking natural habitats, local voluntary groups have expanded their monitoring and care of local fauna, particularly fallow deer populations around Harold Hill and Rainham. The introduction of local authority restrictions on public land use follows a wider national trend where councils have sought consolidated enforcement powers to address urban management challenges ranging from unmonitored feeding to micro-mobility devices like e-scooters.

Prediction: How This Development Could Affect Local Stakeholders

Should the proposed Public Spaces Protection Order be adopted in its current form, its impact will be felt across several key demographics within the London Borough of Havering:

• Volunteer Wildlife Groups and Caretakers: Local animal welfare volunteers may be forced to alter or formalise their operational methods. If strict enforcement is applied without clear exemptions for accredited care, individuals providing supplementary feed or water during extreme weather events could face Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs), potentially reducing community-led conservation efforts.
• Community Campaigners and Public Speakers: Organisers of local rallies, political stalls, and advocacy groups may face heightened scrutiny when using megaphones or portable sound systems. This could lead to an increased requirement for prior notification or coordination with local enforcement officers to prevent interventions during public gatherings.
• Local Residents and Park Users: General visitors to Havering’s parks and high streets may see an increased presence of council enforcement officers tasked with issuing on-the-spot fines for offences such as littering, irresponsible dog handling, public drinking, and e-scooter misuse. While this may lead to visible reductions in specific types of street-level nuisance, it also establishes a stricter regulatory framework for everyday public conduct throughout the borough.