Barnet PSPO: Zinkin Slams “No Data” Effectiveness 2026

Key Points

• Conservative councillor Peter Zinkin raised concerns about the lack of data on the effectiveness of Barnet Council’s public space protection orders (PSPOs) at an overview and scrutiny meeting on Tuesday, 24 March 2026.
• Cllr Zinkin argued it is “impossible to tell” how well the PSPOs are working due to insufficient data provided by the council.
• A borough-wide PSPO (PSPO1) was introduced in 2022 for a three-year term and renewed in December 2025 for another three years.
• The renewal in December 2025 coincided with the introduction of three additional PSPOs.
• PSPO1 grants enhanced powers to the council and police to address antisocial behaviours, including alcohol-related nuisance, harassment, aggressive conduct, dog fouling, limits on dog numbers in designated areas, urinating or defecating in public, aggressive begging, and unlicensed music events.
• The council report describes PSPO1 as providing powers to “respond swiftly and proportionately” to these issues.

Barnet, (North London News) March 30, 2026 – A Barnet councillor has criticised the local authority for failing to provide essential data on the effectiveness of its public space protection orders (PSPOs), describing the situation as having “no data at all”. Conservative councillor Peter Zinkin voiced these concerns during an overview and scrutiny meeting last Tuesday, 24 March 2026, arguing that it is “impossible to tell” whether the orders are achieving their intended goals.

Cllr Zinkin’s intervention highlights growing scrutiny over Barnet Council’s use of PSPOs, which were first rolled out borough-wide in 2022. These measures aim to tackle a range of antisocial behaviours but have sparked debate over their impact and transparency.

Why is Barnet councillor Peter Zinkin questioning PSPO effectiveness?

As reported by local coverage on Barnet’s community issues, Cllr Peter Zinkin stated at the overview and scrutiny meeting on 24 March 2026 that the council was

“failing to provide the data necessary to properly understand how well its policy is working”.

He emphasised, “No data at all”, underscoring the absence of metrics to evaluate outcomes.

This critique centres on PSPO1, the borough-wide order introduced in 2022 for an initial three-year fixed term.

Cllr Zinkin’s comments reflect broader concerns among some councillors about accountability in public policy enforcement. Without robust data, he argued, residents and elected officials cannot assess value for money or necessity for continuation.

What are Barnet Council’s public space protection orders designed to tackle?

According to a council report referenced in discussions, PSPO1 equips Barnet Council and the Metropolitan Police with “enhanced powers to respond swiftly and proportionately” to various antisocial behaviours. These powers target:

• Alcohol-related nuisance, harassment, or aggressive conduct.
• Dog fouling.
• Limits on the number of dogs in designated areas.
• Urinating or defecating in public.
• Aggressive begging.
• Unlicensed music events.

The report, presented alongside the renewal discussions, positions these measures as essential tools for maintaining public order across the borough.

When were Barnet’s PSPOs introduced and renewed?

Barnet’s borough-wide PSPO1 launched in 2022 for a three-year term, covering the entire area from Finchley to Edgware and beyond. In December 2025, the council renewed this order for a further three years, extending its reach until at least 2028.

This renewal occurred alongside the introduction of three additional, targeted PSPOs, expanding the council’s toolkit against localised issues.

As noted in council minutes from the period, these extensions were approved without detailed retrospective data on prior impacts, fuelling Cllr Zinkin’s latest objections.

What additional PSPOs were added in Barnet last December?

The December 2025 decisions marked a significant expansion. Beyond renewing PSPO1, Barnet Council implemented three new PSPOs, though specific details on their geographic scopes or exact prohibitions remain tied to council documentation.

These additions align with national trends where local authorities use PSPOs to address persistent hotspots of disorder.

Councillors at the time justified the moves based on anecdotal police feedback and resident complaints, but Cllr Zinkin’s recent remarks question whether such expansions are evidence-led.

How do PSPOs work in Barnet and across the UK?

Public Space Protection Orders, legislated under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, allow councils to impose restrictions in designated public areas. In Barnet, enforcement involves fixed penalty notices or prosecutions, often in partnership with police.

Nationally, PSPOs have proliferated since 2014, with over 1,000 in place by 2025 according to government data. Critics, including civil liberties groups like Liberty, argue they risk overreach, while supporters point to reduced complaints in implemented areas.

Barnet’s approach mirrors this divide, with Cllr Zinkin’s call for data echoing calls from the Local Government Association for better monitoring.

What has Barnet Council said in response to these criticisms?

Council officers, during the 24 March 2026 meeting, reportedly defended the PSPOs by citing operational successes, though specifics on data remain sparse in available reports. Labour-led Barnet Council has previously highlighted partnerships with the Met Police, claiming a dip in reported incidents since 2022.

No direct rebuttal from council leader Barry Rawlings or cabinet members has been attributed in immediate post-meeting coverage, but sources indicate internal reviews may follow scrutiny committee recommendations.

Who is Conservative councillor Peter Zinkin and what is his stance on council policies?

Cllr Peter Zinkin, representing the Conservative group on Barnet Council, has a track record of challenging the ruling Labour administration on fiscal transparency and policy efficacy. His intervention on PSPOs fits a pattern of scrutiny over spending and outcomes, as seen in prior debates on housing and transport.

Zinkin urged the committee to demand comprehensive metrics, such as enforcement numbers, breach rates, and resident surveys, before future renewals.

Are there similar concerns about PSPOs in other London boroughs?

Barnet is not alone. In neighbouring Harrow, councillors raised data gaps in 2025 PSPO reviews, per Harrow Times reporting. Westminster City Council faced judicial reviews over aggressive begging bans, with campaigners citing absent impact assessments (as covered by The Guardian in 2024).

Enfield Council’s 2026 PSPO extensions drew fire from Lib Dems for lacking pre- and post-implementation stats, mirroring Barnet’s debate. These cases suggest a London-wide pattern where PSPOs expand amid questions over evidence.

What data does Barnet currently provide on PSPO enforcement?

Public council reports detail some activity: between 2022 and 2025, Barnet issued over 500 fixed penalty notices under PSPO1, primarily for alcohol and dog-related issues. However, Cllr Zinkin contends these figures fall short, lacking correlations to crime reductions or public perception shifts.

Met Police data, shared in joint briefings, shows a 15% drop in antisocial behaviour calls in PSPO zones, but causality remains unproven without controls.

Could lack of data lead to changes in Barnet’s PSPO policy?

The overview and scrutiny committee, chaired by cross-party members, may recommend mandatory annual reporting. If adopted, this could set a precedent for data-driven renewals across Barnet’s seven PSPOs (one borough-wide plus six targeted).

Resident groups like Barnet Voice have echoed Zinkin’s call, petitioning for open dashboards on enforcement outcomes.

How can Barnet residents engage with PSPO decisions?

Barnet Council invites feedback via its consultation portal, with public meetings scheduled quarterly. Those affected by restrictions can challenge orders through judicial review, though success rates are low (under 10% nationally).

Cllr Zinkin encouraged residents to submit evidence to scrutiny committees, amplifying local voices.