*PART 1 – PUBLIC DOCUMENT
AGENDA ITEM No.
9
TITLE OF REPORT: EFFECTIVENESS OF ALCOHOL FREE ZONES (DPPO's) AND
DISPERSAL ORDERS (DO’s)
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF HOUSING AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
1.
SUMMARY
1.1
This report provides a summary of Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO’s), often
referred to by the media as ‘alcohol free zones’ and Dispersal Orders (DO’s).
1.2
This report provides a comparison on the method of application and implementation
of either a Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) or Dispersal Order (DO).
1.3
This report also provides a review of the effectiveness of the Designated Public Place
Order (DPPO) that was implemented in Royston and the effectiveness of Dispersal
Orders (DO) that were implemented in Hitchin and Letchworth town centres
respectively.
2.
FORWARD PLAN
2.1
This report does not contain a recommendation on a key decision and has not been
referred to in the Forward Plan.
3.
BACKGROUND
3.1
Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO) provide local authorities powers to
designate places where restrictions on public drinking apply. Designated Public
Place Orders (DPPO) can only be implemented in areas that have experienced and
evidenced alcohol-related disorder and crime.
3.2
Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO) are not intended to disrupt peaceful
activities, for example individuals consuming alcohol whilst enjoying a picnic in a
park, but to specifically address nuisance or annoyance associated with the
consumption of alcohol in a public place. It is important to note that it is not a
criminal offence to consume alcohol within a designated area. An offence is only
committed if the individual exhibiting anti social behaviour refuses to comply with a
police officer’s/police community support officer’s (PCSO’s) request to refrain from
drinking.
3.3
Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO) are sometimes misleadingly referred to as
‘Alcohol Free Zones’, ‘Drinking Control Areas’ and ‘Drinking/Alcohol Ban Areas’. This
can be confusing to members of the public as the purpose of the legislation is not to
ban alcohol in a public area, but to give police the powers to deal with anti-social
activities stemming from the consumption of alcohol.
PARNERSHIPS (08.07.10)
3.4
Dispersal Orders (DO) provide the police with powers to tackle intimidation and anti
social behaviour by groups of people. Dispersal Orders (DO) can only be
implemented in areas where there is evidence of significant and persistent anti
social behaviour and where groups of people have caused intimidation, alarm or
distress to members of the public.
3.5
Dispersal Orders (DO) are not intended to prevent groups congregating, such as
people meeting friends in parks or outside public buildings, providing they do so
within the law and without causing fear, intimidation and distress to others, but to
specifically disperse groups that have, or are likely to cause, anti social behaviour.
Where a police officer or police community support officer (PCSO) has reasonable
grounds for believing that members of the public are being intimidated, harassed,
alarmed or distressed they may provide a direction requiring the group to disperse
from the area within the Dispersal Order (DO) boundary.
3.6
Dispersal Orders (DO) have received national media coverage when they are
interpreted to prevent groups of ‘more than two’ teenagers walking or socialising in
town centre or public place. This is a total misrepresentation, as the intention is to
provide the relevant powers to the police to disperse groups of people – not
necessarily always teenagers either – who are acting in an anti social manner likely
to offend local people. This is an important message to get across to the public in
the use of a Dispersal Order (DO), as the intention is not to demonise young people
and other age groups who wish to use town centres in a social manner.
4.
APPLICATION FOR AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGNATED PUBLIC PLACE
ORDERS AND DISPERSAL ORDERS
4.1
The process of application and implementation for designated Public Place Orders
(DPPO) and Dispersal Orders (DO) are very different.
4.2
The application for the implementation of a Designated Public Place Order
(DPPO) is the responsibility of the local authority. It can be requested by the
police, as statutory partners within the Community Safety Partnership, in tackling
local crime and disorder, but the onus for evidencing need, consulting local residents
and agreeing implementation rests with the local authority.
4.3
This requires a public notice in the local press outlining the proposal, a period of
public consultation which must include local businesses, including licensed premises
and off licences. The consultation period must give local residents the opportunity to
make representations and it is a statutory requirement that no order can be made
until at least 28 days after the notice has been circulated to the local press and on
the proviso that no valid objections are made. Home Office guidance recommends
that a period of 4-6 weeks is provided for this purpose.
4.4
The consultation results and crime data are then considered in the establishment of
the Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) boundary. Once this has been
undertaken and before a Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) can take effect, a
further notice must be published in the local press identifying the place to which the
order refers, setting out the effect that the order will have on that area and indicating
the date on which the order will take effect.
4.5
Therefore, the application of a Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) is a very
lengthy, time consuming and expensive process for a local authority to administer.
PARNERSHIPS (08.07.10)
4.6
Once a Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) has been made police powers under
Section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 immediately become available
and if a police officer or a police community support officer (PCSO) suspects that a
person has recently drunk alcohol or intends to drink alcohol in a Designated Public
Place Order (DPPO) area, in order to prevent public nuisance and disorder, police
can require a person to; stop drinking alcohol, hand over the containers they are
drinking from and any other containers believed to contain alcohol.
4.7
Once a Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) has been implemented there is no
expiry date, however Home Office guidance recommends that Designated Public
Place Orders (DPPO) should be evaluated and reviewed every two years to identify
whether it is still required. Under Section 13 (3) of the Criminal Justice and Police
Act 2001, local authorities have the power to revoke a Designated Public Place Order
should it no longer be required. However, the processes of consultation and publicity
will need to be undertaken when any revocation is being considered.
4.8
A Dispersal Order (DO), on the other hand, although requiring the approval of
the Local Authority, is entirely resourced through the police in terms of
initiation, implementation and evaluation. Where there is an evidence of need for
a Dispersal Order (DO) and subject to consent of the local authority, a police officer
of or above the rank of superintendent may authorise the order. The Dispersal Order
(DO) must then be publicised before coming into force, setting out the effect that the
order will have on the area and indicating the date on which the order will take effect.
4.9
Once a Dispersal Order (DO) has been made police powers, under Part 4 (section
30-36) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, enable police officers and police
community support officers to disperse groups where they have reasonable grounds
for believing that their presence or behaviour has resulted in, or is likely to result in, a
member of the public from being harassed intimidated, alarmed or distressed.
Individuals can be directed to leave the locality and may be excluded from the area
for up to 24 hours. The Order also enables police powers to return young people
under 16 home, who were out on the streets and not under the control of an adult,
after 9pm if they are either at risk or vulnerable to anti-social behaviour and/or crime,
or causing or at risk of causing anti-social behaviour. The Dispersal Order (DO) can
then last for up to six months and can be extended if it is still considered necessary.
4.10
The fact that the implementation of a Dispersal Order (DO) does not require the
lengthy consultation required of a Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) means that
it can be implemented much more quickly to tackle immediate issues. Although a
Dispersal Order can only be exercised within a finite timeframe of 6 months, in
comparison to a Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) which can remain in force
until it is deemed unnecessary, the process for an extension or renewal is relatively
quick and straightforward requiring the police to review the evidence to continue the
order, seek local authority consent and authorisation from a police superintendent.
4.11
A Dispersal Order (DO) gives the police powers to intervene where groups of people
gather and cause disruption. This means it can be used not only for the removal of
those consuming alcohol, but also groups gathering and causing noise in a town
centre or park too.
PARNERSHIPS (08.07.10)
5.
EVALUATION OF DESIGNATED PUBLIC PLACE ORDERS AND DISPERSAL
ORDERS IN NORTH HERTFORDSHIRE
5.1
Presently there is only one Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) in operation in
North Herts which is in Royston. The Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) was
introduced in Royston in October 2006 and covers the town, Priory Memorial
Gardens and surrounding streets. Its implementation was as a result of a review of
alcohol related crime and disorder in North Hertfordshire’s towns which indicated that
Royston had a significantly higher number of recorded incidents in comparison to
Letchworth, Baldock and Hitchin.
5.2
Findings from Hertfordshire Constabulary’s crime analysts have indicated that anti
social behaviour and criminal offences have been significantly reduced within the
Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) area since the Designated Public Place
Order (DPPO) was implemented. There has been an 11% reduction in anti social
behaviour, and criminal damage and violence have reduced by 41% and 87%
respectively when comparing data from October 2008-9 to the same period in 20052006 prior to the implementation of the Designated Public Place Order (DPPO).
5.3
However, although there has been a positive correlation between the reduction of
crime incidents and the enforcement of the Designated Public Place Order (DPPO), it
is extremely difficult to ascertain to what degree it has had directly on crime reduction
as there is no recordable evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness on crime
prevention per se. In all cases where officers approached individuals to ask them to
cease from drinking, every individual complied and therefore no record was made as
no offence was committed.
5.4
In a Police review of the Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) in Royston in
January 2010, anecdotal officer feedback suggests that public awareness of the
Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) had been an effective preventative measure
to curb anti social drinking and nuisance crime and that the absence of prosecutions
should not necessarily imply lack of value. It must be noted however that the
reduction in these offences could also be attributed to the vast range of other police
powers that are used to deal with alcohol-related issues.
5.5
Currently there is one Dispersal Order (DO) in operation in North Hertfordshire which
is in Hitchin. The Dispersal Order was first introduced in Hitchin in September 2009
and was extended in April 2010 to continue until November 2010. The Dispersal
Order (DO) in Hitchin covers the Hertfordshire Constabulary’s beat codes G1A, G1B
and G1C, which are largely coterminous with Priory, Bearton and Highbury wards.
The Dispersal Order (DO) was implemented in Hitchin as a result of an increase in
anti-social behaviour and crime within the town centre and its surrounding areas.
5.6
Findings from Hertfordshire Constabulary’s crime analysts have indicated that anti
social behaviour and crime types closely related to anti-social behaviour (damage,
assault, public order and robbery/theft) have been significantly reduced since the
dispersal order was implemented. Analysis of data between October 2009 and
January 2010 indicated that there was a 16.9% reduction in anti social behaviour (a
total of 69 less incidents). In addition this period also saw a 38.2% reduction (a total
of 76 less offences) for those crime types closely associated with anti social
behaviour.
PARNERSHIPS (08.07.10)
5.7
Until recently there was a Dispersal Order (DO) in Letchworth town centre which was
implemented between May 2009 and June 2010. Evaluation of anti social behaviour
and criminal damage during the implementation of the Dispersal Order (DO) in
comparison to the same period of the previous year also saw significant reductions.
There was a 30% reduction in incidents of anti social behaviour (a total of 121 less
incidents) and an 18.2% (a total of 14 less offences) reduction in criminal damage
offences. As a result of this reduction the police decided that a Dispersal Order (DO)
is currently no longer required in Letchworth town centre, although should a problem
re-emerge then a re-introduction of a Dispersal Order (DO) will be considered.
5.8
In comparison to the evaluation of the Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) in
Royston, data to evidence the direct impact that the implementation of the Dispersal
Orders (DO) in both Letchworth and Hitchin had in the reduction of anti social
behaviour and criminal damage has been limited, primarily due to the fact that the
majority of individuals eliciting anti social behaviour have complied with officers
requests to disperse thereby negating the need for an official dispersal. This is
evidenced in the relatively small number of ‘official directions’ to leave recorded for
the enforcement of the Dispersal Orders (DO) in Hitchin and Letchworth, in which
between October 2009 and January 2010 only 13 official dispersals were issued in
Hitchin and only 21 being necessary in Letchworth between May 2009 and June
2010. It is also worth noting that in all these incidences no arrests were made.
5.9
Anecdotal feedback from police officers cite that they have found Dispersal Orders
(DO) of value in relation to crime prevention through education of the order as
opposed to enforcement. Police work to raise awareness and educate local
residents of the orders through publicity, in addition to targeted work, such as
educating young people regarding their behaviour, has been considered key to this
success. However the reduction in these offences could also be attributed to the
vast range of other police powers that are used to deal with anti social and criminal
behaviour.
5.10
In summary, whilst in both cases they have been cited as useful crime prevention
tools that have supported the reduction in anti social behaviour and crime, the
process to implement a Dispersal Order (DO) as opposed to a Designated Public
Place Order (DO) is much quicker to initiate and has no cost to the local authority. In
contrast, the application of a Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) is a lengthy,
time consuming and expensive process for the authority to implement. In addition,
the police have already a number of powers (listed in section 6) to tackle alcohol
related anti social behaviour and crime, which also includes the authorities byelaws
to tackle anti social alcohol consumption in public places such as parks.
5.11
Since 2007, the council and its partners have been required through changes to
legislation to assess the level of local crime using both hard data and anecdotal
evidence to create an annual document, the Strategic Assessment for the district.
This annual review replaces the former three yearly action planning, the review also
requires the authority and its partners to consider the effect of various measures
which have been put in place. The use of Dispersal Orders (DO) or Designated
Public Place Orders (DPPO) therefore form part of that overall assessment, as would
the consideration of further implementation should anti social behaviour or street
drinking be found to be requiring such interventions based on data then available.
PARNERSHIPS (08.07.10)
6.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1
The overarching legislation referring to community safety issues was the Crime and
Disorder Act of 1999, which required each local authority to form a community safety
partnership with other statutory agencies operating in their area; that requirement still
stands. The Authority is additionally required to work with its community safety
partners to address alcohol-related disorder and nuisance crime in the district under
sections 12-16 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Specifically Section 13 of
the Act enables the Local Authority to introduce Designated Public Place Orders
(DPPO) in areas that have experienced alcohol-related disorder and nuisance crime.
6.2
Section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 provides the police with
powers to deal with anti-social drinking in Designated Public Place Order (DPPO)
areas.
6.3
Part 4 (s30-36) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 provides the police, working
with the Local Authority with powers to deal with the removal of anti-social behaviour
and intimidation in localities identified within the Dispersal Order (DO) area.
6.4
There are also a number of other police powers to address alcohol related anti social
behaviour and crime. The Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997
specifically targets underage drinking and includes the ‘proof of age schemes’,
alcohol education and alternative labelling of alcohol. The Licensing Act 2003 also
creates offences for the sale of alcohol to or on behalf of children. The Violent Crime
Reduction Act 2006 also provided police powers to issue a direction to any individual
to leave a locality for up to 48 hours if there is a likelihood that that individual is likely
to cause or contribute to alcohol related crime and disorder in the locality. In addition
the police have existing powers to issue on the spot penalties for being drunk in the
highway or other public place (section 12, Licensing Act, 1872) and for disorderly
behaviour while drunk in a public place (section 91, Criminal Justice Act, 1967.
Furthermore the Authority has a number of byelaws which prohibit anti social
behaviour in its parks and recreation grounds. These powers remain available to the
police to enforce as appropriate, alongside any Designated Public Place Order
(DPPO) or Dispersal Order (DO).
7.
7.1
FINANCIAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS
There are no direct financial and risk implications pertaining to this report, although if
additional Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO’s) were to be considered, then
there would need to be due regard for financial costs incurred towards its
implementation; these would include extensive consultation and legal fees,
newspaper adverts and the placement of metal signs (by County Highways)
identifying the extents of the Designated Public Place Order (DPPO). In contrast,
Dispersal Orders (DO’s) require only the signature of the Chief Executive, since the
police are responsible for advertising the Dispersal Order’s (DO) commencement and
the area is defined only by map, not signage and therefore represents no additional
cost to the authority.
PARNERSHIPS (08.07.10)
8.
HUMAN RESOURCES AND EQUALITIES ISSUES
8.1
There are no direct human resource and equalities issues pertaining to this report.
Implementation of Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO’s) and Dispersal Orders
(DO’s) require the police to agree relevant officer resources be made available.
8.2
The Council recognises the changing nature of equality legislation and incorporates
national legislation and regulations into its scheme and services as appropriate, as
set out in the Council's Corporate Equality Strategy.
8.3
The relevant duties for this report are communication for people who are blind or deaf
or speak another language, to ensure they understand the effect of the Designated
Public Place Order and the Dispersal Orders currently implemented in North Herts. In
terms of their implementation, police recording will ensure that a review of age
groups, ethnic origin, etc, is maintained in order to demonstrate the orders are being
applied effectively.
9.
RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1
That the Partnerships Scrutiny Sub-Committee consider and comment on the
implementation and evaluation of the Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO’s) and
Dispersal Orders (DO’s)
9.2
That the Partnerships Scrutiny Sub-Committee note that the implementation of
Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO’s) and Dispersal Order (DO’s) supports the
Annual Strategic Assessment’s five strategic priorities, in particular alcohol-related
crime and anti-social behaviour and criminal damage.
9.3
That the Partnerships Scrutiny and Sub-Committee notes that new Designated Public
Place Orders (DPPO) should not be pursued at this time as they are time consuming
and costly to implement to the authority and do not generate significant additional
value to existing police powers to tackle alcohol related antisocial behaviour and
crime.
10.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1
To fulfil requirements placed on the Authority to ensure it has opportunity to review
and scrutinise relevant activities to address crime and disorder issues locally.
11.
APPENDICIES
11.1
Appendix A – Hertfordshire Constabulary Crime Pattern Analysis – Designated
Public Place Order (DPPO) – Royston March 2008
11.2
Appendix B – Hertfordshire Constabulary Crime Pattern Analysis – Designated
Public Place Order (DPPO) – Royston February 2010
11.3
Appendix C – Comparison table of ASB and Crime Offences in Royston prior to the
implementation of the Designated Public Place Order (DPPO) and since its inception
using data from appendices A and B
11.4
Appendix D – Hertfordshire Constabulary Royston Town Centre Alcohol Free Zone
January 2010
11.5
Appendix E – Hertfordshire Constabulary Review of Effectiveness of Dispersal Order:
Hitchin, January 2010
PARNERSHIPS (08.07.10)
11.6
Appendix F – Hertfordshire Constabulary Review of Effectiveness of Dispersal Order:
Letchworth Garden City, January 2010
11.7
Appendix G – Report: Letchworth Town Centre Dispersal Order, presented at
Letchworth Area Committee, June 2010
12.
CONTACT OFFICERS
Authors:
12.1
Rebecca Coates, Community Safety Manager
(01462)474504
rebecca.coates@north-herts.gov.uk
12.2
Andrew Godman, Head of Housing and Public Protection
(01462)474293
andy.godman@north-herts.gov.uk
Contributors:
12.3
Liz Green, Head of Policy, Partnerships and Community Development
(01462)474230
liz.green@north-herts.gov.uk
12.4
Geoff Camp, Former Chief Inspector for North Hertfordshire
Herts Constabulary
12.5
Neil Ballard, Chief Inspector for North Hertfordshire
Herts Constabulary
(01438)757691
Neil.Ballard@Herts.pnn.police.uk
13.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
13.1
Guidance on Designated Public Place Orders (DPPO’s) for Local Authorities in
England and Wales. Home Office November 2009. Ref: 299501
13.2
A Practical Guide for Dealing with Alcohol Related Problems: What You Need to
Know. Home Office February 2008 Ref: 284303
13.3
Home Office website: ASB Practitioner’s Area
PARNERSHIPS (08.07.10)