Agenda item 6

Schedule of Responses to Cumulative Assessment Consultation in Ashley Cross

Summary Report

Dorset Police initiated a cumulative impact assessment for Poole Town and Ashley Cross in August 2012 on the grounds of crime and disorder. The Licensing Authority as required by the guidancefrom the Secretary of State as set out in the Licensing Act 2003 sought evidence with which to make an assessment as to the need for a cumulative impact policy in these areas. The Council therefore started to seek information from local businesses and residents in the Ashley Cross area relating to crime and disorder and public nuisance. Following discussions with Dorset Police they reviewed their evidence in May 2013 to assess if there was sufficient evidence to continue with their request for a cumulative impact policy. Dorset Police's view was that at this time the evidence available relating to crime and disorder was insufficient to continue with their application which has now been withdrawn.

A consultation was advertised and businesses and residents were asked to complete a questionnaire asking for information relating to crime and disorder and public nuisance in Ashley Cross. The Council received 50 responses to the consultation of which28were from people with businesses in the area and 31 from residents living in the area. It was also noted that 9 responses were form people that lived in the area as well as having a business in the area. While some have information relating to times of the incidents some do not and it therefore makes it more difficult to link some of the incidence with the night time environment.

Of those that responded24 said yes to question 2 which asked if you had experienced problems with crime and disorder while 32 responded yes to question 3 relating to public nuisance. Two responders did not answer questions 2 and 3. All but 3(47) answered yes to supporting a cumulative impact policy. Of those that responded no to question 2 about crime (28) 16 were businesses, 12 were residents and of the 28 responders 7 were residents that also ran a business in the area. Of the 32 that responded to question 3 about nuisance 14 ran businesses and 22 were residents and 4 were resident that also ran businesses in the area. There were 16 respondents that answered no to both questions 2 and 3 of which 9 were businesses and 7 residents and 4 of these were residents that also run businesses. While 22 responded yes to both questions 2 and 3, 7 were businesses, 15 residents and only 1 from a resident that ran a business in the area.Overall 11 of the people responding on behalf of a business did not tick to say they used the area.

The Licensing Act 2003 has provisions to resolve problems that have arisenfrom known individual premises. If this is the case then the review process should be used. Where the problem cannot be appropriated to individual premises and all other methods of resolving the problem have been exhausted then a cumulative impact policy can be introduced.

Looking at the information submitted by the businesses 8 provided no evidence to support a CIP, 1 related to an individual licensed premise and 1 was against the implementation of a policy. Overall 4 complaints related to individual licensed premises and 1 was about street drinkers which can be dealt with by the police as the area is covered under a designated public places order.

The evidence submitted that relates to individuals using the area and not specific to any premises mainly refers to noise from people in the street, people leaving premises, or from those moving from one premise to another. Bad language and people shouting at each other are also problems highlighted. Music coming from premises but where the individual premises could not be identified was also mentioned.

The public nuisance issues relate to the dangerous behaviour of pedestrians who walk, stagger and run into the road often when drunk. Vomit, urination and defecation are also a common complaint along with litter, food debris, fast food packaging, bottles, cans and broken glass generally around the area, in the park and in doorways. It was also commented that people gathering outside premises to smoke or queuing to gain access to premises was intimidating and made residents feel apprehensive.

Respondent Name & Address / Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Comments / Appraisal
1 / Name and Address Supplied / B / No / No / Yes / No comment about using the area
Supports CIP no additional comments / No evidence provided to support a cumulative impact policy.
2 / Name and Address Supplied / B / Yes / No / Yes / Charity. No comment about using the area.
Front window broken once.
Supports CIP no further comments / One incident of crime and disorder noted and no evidence of nuisance.
3 / Name and Address Supplied / B R / No / No / No / Uses the area
Does not support CIP and states need more fun places to go. / No evidence provided to support a cumulative impact policy.
4 / Name and Address Supplied / BR / No / No / Yes / Uses the area
Supports CIP no additional comments / No evidence provided to support a cumulative impact policy.
5 / Name and Address Supplied / B / No / No / No / Does not support CIP no additional comments / No evidence provided to support a cumulative impact policy.
6 / Name and Address Supplied / B / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
Problems: Shop window smashed on numerous occasions. Blinds slashed. Graffiti, swearing outside shop, alcohol left on doorstep. Abusive language and drunkenness day and night.
Supports CIP –feels area is out of control in the evening. Even a bouncer at the take away. / Incident of crime and disorder and some evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
Graffiti is not normally associated with the late night economy.
7 / Name and Address Supplied / B / No / Yes / Yes / Problems of people being sick and rubbish along the post office parade.
Supports CIP / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
8 / Name and Address Supplied / B / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area
Problems of theft of lead and petty vandalism
General littering and car left in car park.
Some defecation on office doorstep.
Feel the area has become over run with licensed premises. Used to feel safe when coming out of the area on weekends but more recently the type of people out seem to be more aggressive/drunk.
Supports CIP / Theft of lead and parking issues cannot be dealt with under licensing legislation
Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
CIP would not decrease the number of existing premises.
9 / Name and Address Supplied / B / No / No / Yes / We have not experienced any problems.
Unaware of night time nuisance as the office is not open. Understands that too many premises offering alcohol can lead to disorder and nuisance.
Feel there are enough such premises and therefore supports CIP / No evidence provided to support a cumulative impact policy.
CIP would not reduce the number of existing premises in the area or reduce trading hours.
10 / Name and Address Supplied / BR / Yes / No / Yes / Uses the area.
Problems of thefts from shed in the back car park and from the shop. All before 7pm. Parking issues with people using the pub. No social problems as not open after 7pm. Has seen a definite change on some evenings and atmosphere feels aggressive and not nice.
Supports CIP. / Thefts and parking issues cannot be dealt with under licensing legislation
No evidence provided to support a cumulative impact policy.
11 / Name and Address Supplied / B / No / Yes / Yes / Constant rubbish and broken glass left in doorways
Supports CIP / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
12 / Name and Address Supplied / BR / No / No / Yes / Uses the area.
No additional comments
No problems but supports CIP / No evidence provided to support a cumulative impact policy.
13 / Name and Address Supplied / B / Yes / No / Yes / Graffiti outside the office.
Supports CIP / Graffiti is not normally associated with the late night economy.
No evidence provided to support a cumulative impact policy.
14 / Name and Address Supplied / B / No / Yes / Yes / Public nuisance such as drunks playing in road, broken bottles, discarded food and general waste in the area.
Common sense will eventually tell. Too many drinking establishments in any one non town centre area spells trouble.
Supports CIP. / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
CIP would not reduce the number of existing premises in the area or reduce trading hours.
15 / Name and Address Supplied / B / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
Problems of excess litter, bottles and debris around premises. Damage to shop front. On sports event days drunken behaviour. Not a nice environment for people/customers.
Supports CIP / One incident of crime and disorder noted. Some evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
16 / Name and Address Supplied / B / No / No / Yes / Use the area.
Believes the area is well serviced by licensed establishments. Although the quality and age group serviced could be raised. Have concerns over two premises.
Supports CIP. / As complaints mainly relate to a single premise the review process should be used to address these problems.
17 / Name and Address Supplied / B / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
Problems of used needles at rear of the store and human faeces on door step at rear. Bottles and beer cans left on front window ledge.
Supports CIP / Drug problems cannot be dealt with under licensing legislation.
Some evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
18 / Name and Address Supplied / BR / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
Problems encountered:
Shop window smashed.
ConstantLittering.
Drunks being sick outside shop.
Noise and bad language on Fri and Sat night
Supports CIP and wants current bars to close at midnight. / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
CIP would not reduce the number of existing premises in the area or reduce trading hours.
19 / Name and Address Supplied / R / No / Yes / Yes / Does not want any of her details released
Broken bottles and glasses from the pub on property.
Masses of litter on drive and near front door.
Using household refuse bin as a public bin.
Loud music and talking from premise and from cars in car park. People swearing.
Relates to individual premises and received by e-mail / As complaints mainly relate to a single premise the review process should be used to address these problems.
Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
20 / Name and Address Supplied / R / No / No / Yes / Uses the area
Problems from music noise specifically from Le Bateau. Staff/Bouncers are good at keeping disturbances and drunken antics to a minimum.
Thinks we should consider soundproofing of bars as a mandatory requirement if they open past 11pm.
Supports CIP as premises should prove that there will not be any negative impacts on the surrounding areas. / As complaints mainly relate to a single premise the review process should be used to address these problems.
Greater scrutiny of the operating schedules should be carried out by the responsible authorities when a new application or variation is received.
21 / Name and Address Supplied / R / No / Yes / Yes / Problems on a Friday and Saturday evenings from broken glass, bottles being thrown in the street, males urinating in street and cars double parked.
Supports CIP / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
Parking issues cannot be dealt with under licensing legislation
22 / Name and Address Supplied / R / No / Yes / Yes / Problems with noise nuisance especially late at night on a Friday or Saturday as drunken individuals or groups make their way home although accepts this is generally only high spirits.
Supports CIP and thinks existing premises should be closed no later than 01:00 hours. / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
CIP would not reduce the number of existing premises in the area or reduce trading hours.
23 / Name and Address Supplied / B / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
Assaulted outside Le Bateau resulting in facial injury. Drunkenness, noise aggressiveness, lewd behaviour, urinating in public.
Traffic bottleneck, no turning or manoeuvring area.
Supports CIP and feels area is unsuitable for evening/late night drinking and entertainment. Drunks running across road, fights, swearing and urinating. Need to draw people back to Quay/ Poole Town. / Evidence of violence, noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises
Parking issues cannot be dealt with under licensing legislation
CIP would not deal decrease the number of existing premises.
24 / Name and Address Supplied / R / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
A robbery at Feet First during daylight hours.
Litter from empty bottles and food packagingdropped in the park and station road.
Dustbins full to overflowing onto the pavement in the lower part of station road in front of business premises. Very unsightly.
Smells from Indian restaurant is at times dreadful.
Supports CIP. Supports any improvement to a nice area. / Robberies cannot be dealt with under licensing legislation. Some evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
Overflowing bins cannot be dealt with under licensing legislation
Smells from restaurants are dealt with under other legislation.
25 / Name and Address Supplied / R / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area
Problems mainly with customers of Britannia, urinating on the library and throwing glasses.
Drive being blocked by delivery vans.
Supports CIP / As complaints mainly relate to a single premise the review process should be used to address these problems.
26 / Name and Address Supplied / R / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
Problems with fights, noise, occasional bottles and glasses left outside on the street. Mainly from one premise. Have seen drug dealing going on outside.
Problems with parking for residents.
Supports CIP / As complaints mainly relate to a single premise the review process should be used to address these problems.
Parking issues cannot be dealt with under licensing legislation
27 / Name and Address Supplied / R / Yes / Yes / Yes / Use the area.
Problems with loud noise late at night normally after 11pm.Excessive litter and vomit.
Parking issues
Supports CIP. –needs a balance of businesses in area.
Note: complaint that street notices were placed too high up on lamp posts and some seen being removed by businesses / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
Parking issues cannot be dealt with under licensing legislation
Noted. Notices were checked on a number of occasions and replaced if required.
28 / Name and Address Supplied / R / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area
A problem with groups outside premises who are intimidating and the state of the individuals is disgraceful.
Most days particularly after a weekend there is broken glass and vomit on the pavement, Lloyds bank car park used as a toilet.
Supports CIP / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
29 / Name and Address Supplied / R / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
Problems with noise, foul language, people urinating in street, glasses thrown and arguments. Often before 7pm when sporting events on. Parking issues.
The area has become a popular drinking area with large groups of people visiting the area purely to get drunk. Problems arise when they act inappropriately.
Supports CIP. / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
30 / Name and Address Supplied / BR / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
Intoxicated people wandering drunk in roads, urinating in doorways, fighting especially in area north of traffic lights.
Supports CIP and thinks existing premises should be closed earlier. / Evidence of noise and nuisance from individuals using the area and not specific to any premises.
CIP would not reduce the number of existing premises in the area or reduce trading hours.
31 / Name and Address Supplied / R / Yes / Yes / Yes / Uses the area.
Has experienced problems with crime and disorder and public nuisance such as shouting, swearing, fighting, damage to cars and wheelie bins tipped over. Large groups outside are intimidating. Urinating and vomiting in street.
Not felt able to walk to and from friend’s homes due to large numbers of drunken groups outside premises in the evening.