Community Protection Notices (CPN) are on-the-spot legal orders that can be issued if a council or police officer judges a person’s conduct to have a ‘detrimental effect on the quality of life’. (See our Campaign Against Community Protection Notices). The CPN must be preceded by a Community Protection Warning (CPW), which is issued on the same grounds.
For the past decade, the Manifesto Club has collected the only national data on local authorities’ use of Community Protection Notice powers. This report contains the data for 2023.
How many CPNs were issued in 2023?
In February this year, we issued FOI requests to 321 local authorities in England and Wales, asking about their use of Community Protection Notice powers. 306 councils responded, and 301 were able to provide the information. These FOI responses found that:
In the year between November 2022 and October 2023, 301 councils issued 6,133 CPNs and 20,737 CPWs. (The CPW figure is under-counted, since three councils – including Leeds – withheld the information on the basis that the volume of CPWs was too high.)
The number of orders is comparable to the previous year, when 6,161 CPNs and 19,414 CPWs were issued. In total, since CPN powers were introduced in 2014, 53,944 CPNs have been issued by councils. In the past four years, councils issued 81,491 CPWs. (See our 2022 Manifesto Club report for CPNs issued in previous years).
These latest figures show that the use of the CPN is remaining consistently high, at around ten times the level of non-conviction ASBOs. (An average of 1,776 ASBOs were issued per year between 1999-2013, but around 60% of these were issued post-conviction for a criminal offence).
There is great variation between councils’ use of CPNs. Durham Council issued the highest number of CPNs (914), for untidy yards and gardens, ASB, and noise issues. Thurrock issued 435 and Rotherham 407, for waste, noise and garden management. Yet 101 councils issued 5 or fewer CPNs, and 76 issued none at all.
In terms of CPWs, Durham Council issued 1852 and Nottingham issued 1652, while Bradford issued 1099 and Gateshead 1015 – for noise, garden management, and ‘asb’. Yet at the same time, 42 councils issued no CPWs and 65 issued 5 or fewer.
What were CPNs issued for?
We asked councils why CPNs and CPWs were issued. 83 councils were not able to provide us with any information about the subjects of their CPNs. Of those who could provide some information, a few gave substantial detail about their CPNs, including in some cases the CPN texts. However, many councils provided generic categories, such as ‘waste’ or ‘asb’, which could refer to a wide variety of incidents. These broader categories – which were the most common – were the least useful in describing the events concerned.
Although asb, waste and noise were the main subjects for which CPNs were issued, there was also substantial variation between councils in terms of the issues targeted. Some councils seem to target particular behaviours (generally minor misdemeanors), resulting in large numbers of CPNs being issued for a particular offence. For example, Medway issued 608 CPWs to people for putting their rubbish out early, while Nottingham issued 1400 CPWs for noise. This targeting can change over time – for example, in previous years Nottingham City Council issued large numbers of CPNs to people for leaving bins on the street.
The use of CPNs appears to primarily reflect enforcement cultures within different councils, and decisions made by officials or staff, rather than indicating higher levels of problem behaviour in a particular area.
A wide range of behaviours are being targeted with CPNs. Because the CPN is such a broad power with a low benchmark of issue, and minimal evidence or procedural requirements, it functions as an all-purpose power that can be used for almost any incident or problem.
CPNs and CPWs are being used to target trivial or anodyne activities. 10 councils used CPWs to restrict bird or animal feeding, and 8 councils restricted swearing or abusive language. 25 councils issuing CPNs for messy gardens, and 5 for barking dogs.
There is also a continued targeting of homeless people, with 19 councils using CPNs to restrict someone from begging, and 6 to restrict sleeping rough (25 councils used CPWs for begging and 7 councils for rough sleeping). It is likely that the three councils that used CPNs to restrict ‘loitering’ were also targeting homeless people. The use of coercive and criminalising orders against this vulnerable group runs counter to the statutory guidance, as well as being morally questionable and practically ineffective.
At the same time, there are a significant number of orders issued for drug use, as well as a smaller number for other criminal offences, including domestic violence, sexual exploitation of children, and criminal damage. CPNs have also been issued for violations of specific regulations or laws, such as the use of unlicensed waste carriers. In these cases, CPNs are being used in lieu of a more specific and often more serious criminal law or power.
Therefore, while trivial incidents are criminalised through the CPN, criminal incidents are being trivialised.
These tables summarise what councils told us about the subjects for which they issued CPNs:
| SUBJECT OF CPNS | NUMBER OF COUNCILS |
| ‘ASB’ | 94 |
| Waste issues | 85 |
| Noise | 49 |
| Messy gardens | 25 |
| Begging | 19 |
| Alcohol | 7 |
| Rough sleeping | 6 |
| Drug use | 6 |
| Neighbour dispute | 6 |
| Barking dog | 5 |
| Street drinking | 5 |
| Bird/animal feeding | 4 |
| Shouting | 4 |
| Swearing or abusive/offensive language | 3 |
| Loitering | 3 |
| Verbal abuse | 3 |
| SUBJECT OF CPWS | NUMBER OF COUNCILS |
| Waste issues | 115 |
| ‘ASB’ | 112 |
| Noise | 72 |
| Messy gardens | 32 |
| Begging | 25 |
| Neighbour dispute | 14 |
| Drugs | 11 |
| Feeding birds/wildlife | 10 |
| Alcohol | 8 |
| Rough sleeping | 7 |
| Barking dogs | 5 |
| Shouting | 5 |
| Street drinking | 4 |
| Abusive/discriminatory language | 4 |
| Swearing/foul language | 4 |
| Loitering | 3 |
| Busking | 3 |
Where we obtained more detail about the CPN text, many of these were found to contain wide-ranging or highly intrusive restrictions. The restrictions on swearing included orders targeting people’s language in their own home. ‘Messy garden’ CPNs can also be highly restrictive, for example specifying the height to which vegetation should be cut in a front garden. Some of the bans on feeding birds included people’s own gardens, and in one case a council banned someone from feeding the ducks.
Here are a selection of notable CPNs, which provide a more qualitative picture of how this power is being used:
- Thanet Council prohibited ‘excessive beehives’ while Broadland restricted ‘bee keeping in residential garden’;
- East Devon Council restricted ‘cockerel crowing’;
- Stroud Council restricted ‘radio noise’ and ‘DIY noise’;
- Islington Council banned someone from having ‘loud TV’;
- Islington issued a CPN to someone for ‘aggressively selling magazines’;
- East Cambridgeshire District Council issued a CPW for feeding the ducks;
- Brighton and Hove Council issued CPWs banning swearing and ‘abusive and discriminatory language’, and CPNs banning ‘swearing/offensive language’;
- Folkestone and Hythe Council issued 4 CPNs and 16 CPWs for camping;
- Havant Council ordered someone to ‘curtail all shouting, screaming and swearing’ in their house, as well as not to bang or slam doors;
- North Devon Council ordered someone to ‘Cut down the overgrown front garden to ground level and maintain at ground level thereafter’;
- Liverpool City Council issued a CPW for an ‘offensive sign in the rear garden of an address causing nuisance and annoyance to a neighbour’;
- Southend Council issued several CPNs to people ordering them ‘to not sleep rough’ and ‘not permitted in specific area’;
- Rother Council issued a CPN for ‘using washing machine at night’;
- East Cambridgeshire issued a CPW for ‘noise from quiz night’, and another for noise from an electric guitar;
- Blackpool Council issued orders for domestic violence, child criminal exploitation, and child sexual exploitation.
Conclusion
It is clear that the CPN remains an unregulated and deeply problematic power. The low benchmark of issue allows a large latitude for officials to use the power as they please, leading to erratic and voluntaristic application and extreme variation between different council areas.
CPNs can have very restrictive effects on a person’s life, including banning them from a certain area of town, or banning them from obtaining food in the case of homeless people. Orders can also make significant intrusions into the private sphere, including restricting the use of radios or TV within the home, banning feeding birds in a garden, or specifying the height to which a person must cut their grass.
We are disappointed that the Home Office has not followed recommendations from JUSTICE and other bodies, to collect data on the use of CPNs and to assess the effectiveness and fairness of this power. We urge the Home Office to review the use and effectiveness of CPNs as a matter of urgency, and certainly before introducing any new orders such as ‘Respect Orders’.
- Report written by Josie Appleton. FOI Research by Alice Lemkes.