Agenda item

To receive a report outlining the issue of nuisance caused by noisy vehicles and car meets in Westminster. The report outlines the enforcement options for both the Council and Metropolitan Police Service, including the limitations of current legislation; current evidence; current activity to mitigate the issues in Westminster; and a proposed plan of action.

6.1      The Committee received a report from Calvin McLean, Director of Public Protection and Licensing and Alex Juon, Team Manager in Public Protection and Licensing at Westminster City Council, regarding noisy vehicles and car meets in the City. The Committee also welcomed Simon Brooker, Chief Inspector for the Metropolitan Police Service, and Tim Davies, Head of Environmental Health for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, who lent their expertise and experience to the presentation and discussion of the report.

6.2      The Committee was given an update about existing and new measures which the Council had at its disposal in order to tackle the issue of noisy vehicles and car meets. Officers presented Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) as a measure which empowered the Council to order people to cease drinking or surrender their alcohol.

6.3      The Committee was informed that RBKC had trialled the use of acoustic cameras, which aimed to detect high decibel levels in localised areas. The Committee further heard that this trial had seen some success in reducing numbers of car meets and vehicles causing nuisance in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

6.4      The Committee was presented with details of the acoustic camera trial in RBKC by Tim Davies. The Committee heard how the trial had taken place over the three months before 25 December 2020 and how instances of car meets had fallen over this three-month period, although it was uncertain whether this could be attributed directly to acoustic cameras.

6.5      The Committee heard that many residents in RBKC took this matter extremely seriously, with RBKC receiving multiple letters and emails of complaint, and petitions formed to encourage RBKC to take more action against car meets.

6.6      The Committee was advised that, according to the data held by RBKC and the Metropolitan Police Service, the chief culprits in car meets and noisy vehicle disturbances were people who drove into London, such as (but not limited to) young men from Essex with customised cars. The Committee was further advised that, contrary to popular resident opinion, most Fixed Penalty Notices (PCNs) were not applied to owners of ‘super-cars’ during Ramadan, for example. The Committee welcomed the news that RBKC had seized one vehicle, following an incident witnessed by enforcing officers.

6.7      The Committee was further advised that co-operation between boroughs was essential in this matter, as there was likely to be displacement from one borough to neighbouring boroughs, depending on which Council cracked down on car meets more severely.

6.8      The Committee invited Chief Inspector Simon Brooker to give a verbal update from the perspective of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The Committee was reassured that the MPS was supportive of the implementation of PSPOs but was advised that the MPS wished to put in place as many tactical options as possible. The ability to pursue remote prosecutions via evidence from acoustic cameras was also commended by Chief Inspector Brooker.

6.9      The Committee heard that policing priorities focused on violence and major disturbances, especially currently within the context of easing COVID-19 restrictions. The Committee further heard that, despite this, there was a policing plan to tackle car meets and noisy vehicles in place that spanned until the end of August and for example, even the past weekend, several dispersal orders had been issued.The Committee welcomed the commitment of the MPS to dedicating resources to tackling car meets throughout the summer, with the caveat that this could not be committed to for the long term.

6.10    The Committee expressed that its own members had been inconvenienced by noisy vehicles and car meets, with Waterloo Place noted as a hotspot in Westminster. Member discussion focused on the highly attractive public realm that attracted car meets. The Committee queried whether persistent offenders could be banned from driving. However, the Committee was satisfied that, whilst people causing disturbances with noisy vehicles could not be banned from driving in the area, PSPOs combined with other measures could limit their behaviour.

6.11    The Committee agreed that whilst noisy vehicles and car meets were a significant nuisance for residents, it was of utmost importance that serious violent crimes and robberies took precedence for policing.

6.12    The Committee requested more detail about the acoustic cameras and asked whether acoustic cameras were set manually, what decibel levels triggered them, and whether video was captured alongside audio. The Committee was advised by officers that a sound level of 80 decibels had been decided upon because it met the threshold required when a fixed penalty notice within a PSPO was issued and that therefore, nuisance vehicles could be penalised if they breached this limit. The Committee was further advised that acoustic cameras, when activated, captured a short video clip of the vehicle which caused the noise.

6.13    The Committee discussed hotspots in Westminster where further enforcement would be useful, such as, but not limited to, the Edgware Road. It was agreed that better communication with residents would be beneficial so that these problem areas could be identified.

6.14    The Committee observed that the collection of data should be prioritised so that Parliament could be lobbied with a firm case for improved primary legislation. The Committee was reassured by officers that this would be taken forward.

6.15    It was raised by the Committee that some vehicles involved in noise disturbances and parking violations were foreign vehicles, including from the Gulf states, and that preventing the importation of certain cars could be considered as one method to alleviate problems in central London. This matter was noted as difficult, as offending vehicles varied, and a traffic officer with keen knowledge of legislation was needed to enforce against such vehicles.

6.16    The Committee received an update on slowing and stopping measures such as additional speed bumps and ‘stingers’ and how they could be used to prevent misuse of vehicles. The Committee heard that temporary public realm works (such as temporary speed bumps) were under consideration but had financial and resource implications. The Committee further heard that acoustic cameras, in conjunction with PSPOs, would help to enforce in specific areas. However, the Committee was informed that severe measures such as stingers were rarely deployed by police and would not be useful, for example, in stopping ongoing car meets.

6.17     The Committee queried the cost-effectiveness of acoustic cameras Debate centred on the cost of the cameras, and the resource implications of staff required to review footage. The Committee was advised by officers that acoustic cameras would be a cost-effective measure for tackling this issue. The Committee thanked the report authors and the external witnesses for their contributions to the meeting and the productive discussions.