Following a consultation in April, Merton Council has given police new discretionary powers to require people to stop drinking and confiscate alcohol (or things they suspect contain alcohol) in public places across the borough.

Known as a Designated Public Places Order (DPPO), Merton previously had a number of such orders across town centre areas, but this new one will apply everywhere in the borough.

Home Office Guidance states that:

Borough-wide DPPOs are not specifically prohibited in the legislation; however, we would advise caution, as, in order for the DPPO to be proportionate, you need to ensure that there is evidence of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour in each and every part of the borough. Any local authority considering a borough-wide DPPO will need to satisfy themselves that they can justify their decision by pointing to evidence of alcohol-related nuisance or annoyance in each and every part of their borough.

When councillors were asked if evidence of alcohol-related anti-social behaviour in each and every part of the borough existed, the answer was no:

Each and every part of the borough does not have alcohol related crime and disorder. However to segment the borough would displace issues into other areas and would require numerous consultations which would be a financial burden to the council and therefore the community. We do have evidence of alcohol being a cause in a number of locations in the borough. The consideration of a controlled drinking zone in a response to this and to ensure the safety of our residents no matter where they are in the borough whilst ensuring value for money through minimising successive consultations as problems are displaced

The new powers will be open to legal challenge because the requirements in the Home Office Guidance haven’t been met.This would ultimately cost taxpayers even more money, and if the evidence doesn’t exist, how is it proved that this action is needed.

We’re also concerned that the ultimate decision on the consultation was delegated to the Council’s Chief Executive (a Council employee) rather than a member of the Council Cabinet, a councillor who would be accountable. The letter people received telling them about the decision merely informs them that there were 730 responses, of which 414 were in favour and 303 against. No effort is made to explain the decision, nor to respond to the concerns.