THERE is no reliable evidence as far as I am aware statistical or otherwise which confirms whether cumulative impact policies or saturation policies actually work in reducing crime and disorder and public nuisance.
Some local authorities such as Westminster which has a particularly effective policy in the West End called the "West End Stress Area" will point to falling crime and indicate that the policy is responsible for the reduction.
However, there may be a number of reasons for falling crime – extra and more effective policing, fewer people coming into the city centres and other measures, some of which Nottingham has adopted.
There is a danger that, politically, local authorities will see saturation zones as effective and will wish to maintain them.
The new coalition Government seems to agree. As part of its reform of licensing, the Home Secretary Theresa May has announced that she will "tear up" the Licensing Act 2003. The Government wants to encourage more local authorities to adopt a saturation zone and indeed to make it easier to adopt them.
According to the current legal position there has to be an evidential burden to convince a local authority that such a stringent measure as a saturation zone is necessary to prevent crime and disorder and public nuisance purposes.
The removal of this will make it much more of a political tool with those local councillors wishing to be seen to be tough in terms of crime and public order championing the zones as an effective antidote.
This is a matter of concern because new businesses will almost certainly be stifled.
What are the other wider implications in terms of the effect on the late-night economy, encouraging new businesses?
In relation to Nottingham, it is easy to sustain the argument that the cumulative impact policy has been successful because it has coincided with a fairly dramatic drop in violent crime. Indeed, the council, the police and other agencies must be congratulated.
However, there has been no regeneration in terms of new licensed premises to add to those currently trading.
Anecdotally, fewer people are coming into Nottingham, therefore there is less demand for so many premises and so it will continue.
If the offer remains the same, or declines, more people will look elsewhere at other cities, or the suburbs, or stay home, and this cannot be good for the city.
A significant number of closed premises have not been replaced.
There is nothing new to attract potential customers
In addition, the police have an enormous range of enforcement powers in relation to licensed premises which cause problems and these have been used regularly to close and suspend licences in the city centre.
How does a saturation policy sit with a desire through the Business Improvement District to attract and improve the late night economy?
Is it not embarrassing that West Bridgford, which used to have two pubs, is taking trade away from the city centre because it is regarded as more of an exciting night out with a range of newly opened premises?
And is it not time that the city council was asking itself serious questions about what is happening late at night and to perhaps try to create more of the vibrancy which appears to have been lost.
As things stand, the larger proposed saturation policy is likely to lead to more stagnation, less crime, fewer people – and more premises that used to be bars.
 |  |
Tony Cottee Peter Crouch Ryan Babel Iain Chambers Censorship Gay and lesbian travel
No comments:
Post a Comment