Those of you who read the fairly nasty reply I got from Camdens Deputy Mayor (And BID board member) Lazarro Pietragnoli might be interested in my reply which I have just sent to him and all the other elected members of Camden Council: Dear Mr Pietragnoli, Thank you for your prompt reply to my email. I didnt expect magnanimity to be in evidence in your reply and was not disappointed. I would also add that I am now even more convinced that you havent understood why your policy is so contentious. When I first received an invitation to participate in the street entertainment consultation by Camden Council I was hugely encouraged. I thought it was a good sign that Camden wanted input from the people that their policy was going to impact upon the most, but it turned out that the policy had been decided and written many months before and that the only things that changed from the consultation were the price of the licenses and the exemptions granted to recorders and flutes. For those of you who are interested my detailed consultation response is here: keepstreetslive/policy-objections/2013/10/our-response-to-camden-councils-consultation The Licensing Committee and the Full Council (With one notable exception) voted for this policy along party lines, so Im fairly certain that it wasnt my power of persuasion that was at issue during the deputations I made so much as the decision of the Labour group to throw their collective weight behind this policy come what may. You refer to the outcome of the consultation. Of the 152 people who responded to that consultation only 16% were in favour of all parts/majority of the policy and 55 % of respondents were against the policy. Of those who responded, 55 were residents and there was more support for the policy amongst this group although the Officers Report rather overstates the level of support. Of the 55 residents a mere 30% (That is to say 17 people) agreed with all, or most of the policy with a further 39% (Or 21 people) mainly agreed with the policy but answered no to one or more questions. So when Camden say 64% of residents back this proposal what they actually mean is 38 people out of 220,000 (Or 0.017 % of residents). Hardly an overwhelming mandate from the electorate. If we disregard the buskers responses and just take others (Presumably visitors to Camden) the responses are rather telling. 80% of the 45 people in this category opposed the policy. When we consider that a total of 56 people complained about busking in the previous year (2012-2013) it becomes ever clearer that the policy has been designed to answer the complaints of this small group of people and has disregarded the wider cultural and social well-being of the borough, as well as the the clear indications of its own consultation. Your comparison of busking with driving licenses is extremely telling. Though the Keep Streets Live Campaign I have developed a growing love of statistics. Here are some for you: Road Traffic Casualties from 2012 Number of people killed in road traffic accidents in the UK: 1754 Number of people seriously injured: 23039 Number of child casualties: 17251 Source: https://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245754/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-main-results-2012.pdf Busking Casualties in Camden in 2012-2013 (Apart from common sense) Number of people killed in busking related incidents within Camden: 0 Number of people seriously injured in busking related incidents within Camden: 0 Number of child casualties from busking: 0 Number of Camden Residents annoyed enough by buskers to complain to the council: 56 The case for licensing the handling of two tons of highly engineered metal driven at speed is unanswerably strong. In fact, given the number of deaths caused by cars it is a testament to the value we place on freedom of movement as a society that there arent many more restrictions on the use of cars. Anybody who has crossed the road outside Britannia Junction where five busy lanes of traffic intersect could attest that it is cars that are a daily threat to pedestrians, cyclists and the environment, and not buskers. In the midst of your triumphalist reply to my earlier e-mail you completely failed to respond to my points about the many existing powers held by the council and the police for dealing with genuine issues resulting from busking. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Camden have a duty to respond to complaints about noise by investigating whether a statutory nuisance is taking place, and, if it is, by serving a noise abatement notice. For each of the 56 people who complained about extreme busking, the noise team had the power to investigate the source of the complaint, and, if appropriate, take enforcement action against the person involved. It is quite likely that many of the complaints were made about the same few buskers. Targeted enforcement against genuinely problematic busking is by far the most proportionate, fair and sensible way of dealing with busking. The penalties for breaching a Section 80 notice are very serious. Criminal record, £5000 fine, seizure of instruments. Note that these sanctions are only invoked when a person has been shown to be a statutory nuisance and do not apply in a blanket fashion to all music making, unlike your policy. This is why the Keep Streets Live Campaign strongly supports the use of existing laws against people who are causing genuine harm instead of catch-all powers that turn even unamplified singing/strumming into a criminal offence unless people get a license, pay money and are thereby vetted by the council and the police. A few high profile prosecutions using these powers, coupled with a council-backed code of conduct, would have cost much less then the policy you have introduced and sent a clear message to the few irresponsible buskers that you intended to deal with them appropriately. Your Principal Environmental Officer Helen Masterton argued that the powers under the Environmental Protection Act are not suitable for busking despite the fact that local authorities across the country use these powers for nuisance busking. What makes Camden so different? Camdens barrister argued that buskers might give false names to the police such as Mickey Mouse to avoid prosecution, but this in itself would be a criminal offence. In order to establish whether or not Camden have made use of their of their existing powers I have made the following Freedom of Information request. I look forward to seeing how much use Camden made of their existing powers before the implementation of the new busking policy. Dear Camden Borough Council, Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 how many Section 80 Noise Abatement Notices were issued in Camden from August 2012 until the present time (March 2014)? Of these, how many were subsequently breached? Of these, how many Section 80 Noise Abatement Notices were issued against a person for nuisance caused by busking in the Borough of Camden from August 2012 until the present time (March 2014)? Of these, how many were subsequently breached? How many prosecutions/warnings were given to persons using loudspeakers in the street after 9pm in Camden under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 between August 2012 until the present time? Yours faithfully, Jonathan Walker Similarly the use of amplification after 9pm at night would be dealt with the using the 1974 Control of Pollution Act. So in your example of walking the streets of Pimlico with a loud-hailer at 3am in protest against the Russians, a police officer or council official would be best to gently remind you that the use of loud speakers is not permitted at this time and to kindly desist from using yours. It certainly would not be appropriate for them to seize your loudspeaker from your possession, to fine you £1000 and to tell you that, before you ever decide to protest again you first need to pay money and go through a vetting procedure involving the Metropolitan Police and the Licensing Office of your local council. Onto Camden Town Unlimited. I am not for a minute suggesting that the three Councillors on the BID influenced them to support your busking policy. I am suggesting, instead, that there is something extremely troubling about the fact that Camden Town Unlimited have given their public backing to this policy having previously not taken a clear public position. In Liverpool it was the City BID who lobbied the Council for a draconian busking policy that we successfully opposed in 2012. Given that a BID is run by business for business it concerns me that they would give public backing for a policy that is so politically contentious and impacts upon shared public space. Whilst many of the BIDs aims are laudable Through its programme of projects CTU intends to position Camden Town as an international destination for the Creative Industries, driving footfall, average spend, improving recruitment and retention of staff and developing exciting new business clusters. it does not follow that businesses by virtue of paying an additional levy should have a privileged and undemocratic role in dictating public policy that affects the wider civic and social sphere. Camden is still a culturally and socially diverse part of London, indeed this is part of its unique charm and vibrancy. The perceived needs of business or the personal preferences of certain residents should not take precedence over the common good. Alongside many others I am concerned that Camdens ability to sustain cultural and social diversity is under threat as never before. The interests of high commerce and developers are not necessarily always aligned with those of the common good and I am concerned that the two are often seen as being one and the same. Indeed its vibrant grassroots cultural offering is an intrinsic part of Camdens appeal and, on its own terms, the BID and the ruling Labour Group have put that under threat in a way that could negatively impact upon the interests of businesses within Camden. As a ruling group within a local authority you have a tremendous amount of power. You have the power to lead collaboratively and in a way that encourages participation and democratic engagement. You also have the power to impose decisions and use the tremendous power and resources entrusted in a public body to crush rather than create. As a campaigning organisation staffed entirely by volunteers (including me) we have nothing like the resources at your disposal. Instead we have only our good will and the force of our arguments. Like you, we genuinely care about the future well-being of Camden. We care about the use of public space and its capacity to allow for spontaneity and urban community alongside the more prosaic aspects of daily life. An informal busking cultural is one important piece of social glue that helps hold a place like Camden together. If you lose that, you might not get it back again. Once again I repeat, we want to work alongside you to develop a policy that addresses the very real concerns of residents without criminalising grassroots culture. We will continue our challenge in the Court of Appeal but will be glad to work with you if the invitation is forthcoming. I wish for all of you an enjoyable weekend, Kind regards, Jonny Walker Founding Director of Keep Streets Live Campaign keepstreetslive jonnywalker.co.uk facebook/jonnysongs
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 17:29:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015