Agenda item

To receive and consider the enclosed report of the Corporate Director (Neighbourhoods).

Coloured copies of the plans of the Chorley Town Centre and Astley Park areas contained within the proposed Orders will be available at the meeting

1.        That the outlined proposals to make a Designated Public Place Order under Section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 in respect of the area identified as Chorley Town Centre and Astley Park on the plan appended to the submitted report be approved for consultation purposes.

2.        That the suggested extension of the Designated Public Place Order to include the Coronation Recreation Ground be considered and determined along with other responses to the consultation.

3.        That, provided evidence is supported and the proposals are endorsed by the Responsible Authority Group of the Safer Chorley and South Ribble Partnership, the Executive Member (Neighbourhoods) be delegated authority to determine the implementation of the Designated Public Place Order.

The Corporate Director (Neighbourhoods) presented a report recommending the imposition of a Designated Public Places Order under Section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act, 2001 in respect of the area identified on the accompanying plan as “Chorley Town Centre and Astley Park”.

The recommendation had been supported by the Responsible Authorities Group of the Safer Chorley and South Ribble Partnership as a tool by which to combat nuisances associated with anti-social behaviour, disorder, and problems caused by drunken adults.  The Order would not impose a ban on alcohol consumption, but would empower Police Officers and Police Community Support Officers to require individuals to surrender the alcohol and any opened or sealed containers in appropriate circumstances.  The powers were to be used solely to address nuisance, annoyance or disorder by adults associated with alcohol.

A suggestion was put forward that the Authority should consider the designation of the town centre, identified parts of Astley Park and recreation areas in the Borough as alcohol free zones.  In response, the Executive Member (Neighbourhoods) indicated that, while he was reluctant to support a blanket ban on the consumption of alcohol as proposed, the possible extension of the Designated Public Places Order to cover the Coronation Recreation Ground could be considered along with other responses to the consultation exercise.

Decisions made:

1.         That the outlined proposals to make a Designated Public Places Order under Section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 in respect of the area identified as Chorley Town Centre and Astley Park on the plan appended to the submitted report be approved for consultation purposes.

2.         That the suggested extension of the Designated Public Places Order to include the Coronation Recreation Ground be considered and determined along with other responses to the consultation.

3.         That, provided evidence is supported and the proposals are endorsed by the Responsible Authorities Group of the Safer Chorley and South Ribble Partnership, the Executive Member (Neighbourhoods) be delegated authority to determine the implementation of the Designated Public Places Order.

Reasons for decisions:

1.         The Order is tailored specifically to address the problems that are prevalent within the identified area and also caters for issues of displacement as a result of the Order.

2.         Other means to prevent drunkenness and unruly behaviour at this location have been tried and, whilst there have been some successes;sustainability over the long term is difficult to maintain.  The introduction of a DPPO will add another prevention and enforcement tool that should also help improve public confidence and perceptions over the long term.

Alternative option(s) considered and rejected:

1.         Whilst the use of CCTV has shown to reduce the levels of crime, including violent crime in the town centre, any consideration of increasing the already extended hours of operation or expansion of the system would be very expensive and not proportionate to the levels of activity.

2.         Any permanent Police or Police Community Support Officer presence would not be cost effective or proportionate in relation to the levels of activity.