Night Vision

NightVision A visual audit of alcohol related incidents in Bath city centre.

(February/March 2005)

The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the above agencies, neither do they reflect specific policy

June 2005

Contents Summary

Page 2

1. Introduction

Page 4

2. Methodological Overview

Page 6

2.1 – Surveyors 2.2 – The Routes 2.3 – Categories Recorded 2.4 – The Dates

3. Historical Context

Page 8

4. Findings – Overview by Category

Page 9

5. Findings – Results by time, date and surveyor group

Page 10

6. Findings – Results by Category

Page 12

6.1 – Behaviour – Aggression or intimidating behaviour 6.2 – Behaviour – Nuisance Noise 6.3 – Behaviour – Obviously intoxicated persons 6.4 – Behaviour – Urinating or Vomiting 6.5 – Behaviour – Street Drinking 6.6 – Physical Features – Dropped Litter/Food 6.7 – Physical Features – Bottles, Cans and Broken Glass 6.8 – Physical Features – Urine and Vomit

7. Findings – Un-Mappable categories

Page 21

8. Further Comments and perceptions of safety

Page 22

8.1 – Perceptions of Safety 8.2 – The Geography of Safety

Appendix 1 – Routes

Page 24

Appendix 2 - Recommendations

Page 25

1

Summary Introduction Following the identification of alcohol related crime and disorder as an area requiring further research, Bath and North East Somerset Community Safety and Drugs Partnership and the Bath Bar Charter Group, supported by the Government Office for the South West, conducted a visual audit of incidents relating to alcohol related crime and disorder in Bath city centre.

Over the course of two weekends in the February/March 2005, 16 surveyors from various demographic and interest groups walked set routes around Bath city centre recording the location of various categories of alcohol related behaviour and physical features: Behaviour x Aggression or Intimidating Behaviour x Nuisance Noise x Obviously intoxicated person x Urinating or Vomiting x Street Drinking x Violent Criminal Behaviour

Physical Features x Dropped Litter/Food x Bottles/Can and Broken glass on street x Urine and Vomit x Criminal Damage (to cars, street furniture including vandalism) x Other Incidents/Physical Features

The report does not intend to provide any quantification of what levels of behaviour and incidents are acceptable within the night-time economy.

Historical Context Levels of Police recorded Criminal Damage, Violent Crime outside the home and complaints regarding nuisance and disorder in Bath city centre during the time of the survey were roughly average within the April 2004 – March 2005 period.

Overall findings ‘Nuisance noise’ was the most commonly recorded behaviour, followed by ‘dropped litter/food’ and ‘bottles cans and broken glass’.

The greatest number of incidents were recorded on Saturday night/Sunday mornings.

Two routes through the city centre were planned; each route was walked four times. The last route (02:30) had the greatest concentration of incidents, although the greatest concentration of ‘nuisance noise’ was recorded during route 2 (12:30) and ‘dropped litter/food’ and ‘bottles and broken glass’ during route 3 (01:30).

Although persons within the ‘student’ and ‘health care professional’ surveyor groups recorded more incidents than those from the ‘residents’ and ‘licensees’ groups, there is evidence to suggest that it is individual perception, rather than membership of a specific group, which impacts on overall findings.

Analysis has been conducted on geography, the likelihood of surveyor perceptions affecting results and the volume of incidents over specific nights.

Geographical Findings Geographical ‘hotspot’s were identified for a large number of the categories recorded. Of particular note are: x x x

2

The passageway between Walcot Street and The Paragon, for aggression or intimidating behaviour, bottles cans and broken glass and urine and vomit.

The area surrounding the Abbey and Orange grove for nuisance noise, obviously intoxicated persons and urine and vomit.

Street drinking being primarily concentrated around the Bus Station area.

x

Dropped litter and food being primarily concentrated around the location of late night fast food establishments.

When analysed, the following categories are deemed likely to relate to individual perception:

‘Aggression or intimidating behaviour’, ‘nuisance noise’ and ‘obviously intoxicated persons’.

‘Violent criminal behaviour’ and ‘Criminal Damage’ could not be mapped for various reasons. There

were five incidents of violent criminal behaviour recorded throughout the course of the time periods

examined.

A large number of incidents were reported as Criminal Damage, significantly larger than the number

of offences recorded on the specific nights. Further research would be necessary to analyse the

nature of this inconsistency.

Further Comments and Perceptions of Safety On average, surveyors felt ‘fairly safe’ in the City Centre. Where incidents of ‘fairly unsafe’ or ‘neither safe nor unsafe’ were recorded, they related to interaction with isolated incidents of ‘violent criminal behaviour’.

A number of issues may be highlighted as changing individuals’ perceptions of safety although these areas, and overall feelings of safety vary according to each individual.

Of the ‘other’ incidents and physical features recorded, the most common related to surveyors feeling ‘unsafe and at risk’ due to speeding and dangerously driven motor vehicles.

Recommendations Please refer to accompanying document ‘NightVision – Recommendations for Further Action’ for specific recommendations referring to this project; a version of this document, correct as at 10 May 2005 is attached as appendix 2.

3

1. Introduction The 2005 Community Safety Audit identified alcohol-related crime and disorder as a priority for further research, to allow multi-agency partnerships to prepare suitable responses.

The Audit went further to note that the Bath City Centre area was experiencing the most significant concentration of these alcohol related incidents.

Fig. 1 On-Licenses and ‘Alcohol related’ incidents by local government ward 03/041

Fig. 1 demonstrates that the Bath City Centre wards of Abbey and Kingsmead experience both the highest density of On-licenses (pubs and clubs) and the highest density of alcohol related incidents.

Further research examining the nature and extent of perceived alcohol related issues in Bath City Centre was conducted and a specific area containing the major ‘‘hotspot’s’ of alcohol related crime and disorder was created. This report resulted in the identification of a number of knowledge gaps in current understanding of alcohol related disorder specifically, and the night-time economy in general.

The principal of visual street auditing were examined2, as were principles examining signal crimes3 in order that an in-depth assessment of existing and emerging issues relating to the night-time economy could take place. It was planned to send out a number of surveyors comprised of various members of local populations to record what was happening/visible in the night-time economy.

Financial support for this project was provided by the Government Office for the South West under the Excellence and Innovation funding stream. It has been conducted as a partnership project between Bath and North East Somerset Community Safety and Drugs Partnership and Bath Bar Charter Group.

It is not the place of this report to provide any quantification of what levels of behaviour and incidents are acceptable within the night-time economy.

1

Source: p24, Bath and North East Somerset Community Safety and Drugs Partnership, Bath and North East Somerset Community Safety Audit, 2001/2 – 2003/4, October 2004 2 Living Streets, http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/consultancy-services-csa.php 3 Home Office, https://www.reassurancepolicing.co.uk/signalcrime.asp

4

For further copies of this or any other reports mentioned please contact: Jon Poole Community Safety Research Officer Bath and North East Somerset CSDP 01225 842532 jon.poole@avonandsomerset.police.uk Or write to: Community Safety Research Bath Police Station Manvers Street Bath BA1 1JN

Related Documents: x x x

Bath and North East Somerset CSDP Community Safety Audit 2002-4 Alcohol Related Crime and Disorder in Bath City Centre and supplementary documents, November 2004 NightVision – Recommendations for Further Action, May 2004

5

2. Methodological Overview 2.1. Surveyors The primary intention of the project was to involve members of the public in the research. Of particular interest to the project was the attraction of commonly hard-to-reach groups, particularly young people, while also to seek involvement of other persons who had some form of investment, either positive or negative, in the night-time economy. The surveyors were eventually selected from the following groups: x x x x

Residents Students (Bath University and Bath Spa University undergraduates and postgraduates were involved)

Health Care Professionals

Local licensees/Hoteliers

In order that these groups could be engaged, it was deemed necessary to provide a gift of vouchers to each surveyor on completion of the project; this gift was enabled by the assistance of the Government Office of the South West.

Despite this offer of a gift, recruitment of surveyors proved difficult. In addition, three surveyors cancelled at short notice various reasons. Replacements for these surveyors were made from within the Nightvision project group.

For Health and Safety purposes it was necessary to provide security for the surveyors. Security was provided by Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) who followed the surveyors in plain clothes.

Although the PCSOs did become involved in a number of incidents during the course of the project, at no point did they have to intervene in an incident specifically for the safety of the surveyors.

2.2. The Routes Two routes were selected on the grounds that they covered known and suspected ‘hotspot’s and also involving limited duplication of ground covered. Full details of the routes are available in Appendix 1.

It was planned that each route would be conducted four times at the approximate times of: 23:30, 00:30, 01:30 and 02:30 (Henceforth referred to as Route 1, Route 2, etc.). A margin of error of fifteen minutes was experienced within the routes, which took between half an hour and 45 minutes to complete.

2.3. Incidents Recorded The principles of signal crimes were examined in order to select those incidents which were seen to relate to the night-time economy and which might further impact on the public realm, crime and disorder.

For ease of classification, the specific incidents were broken down into two categories, those of physical features and actual events occurring: Behaviour x Aggression or Intimidating Behaviour x Nuisance Noise x Obviously intoxicated persons x Urinating or Vomiting x Street Drinking x Violent Criminal Behaviour

Physical Features x Dropped Litter/Food x Bottles/Can and Broken glass on street x Urine and Vomit x Criminal Damage (to cars, street furniture including vandalism) x Other Incidents/Physical Features

Surveyors were asked to annotate the location of these incidents on maps as they followed the routes, in order to enable geographical analysis to be conducted on the results.

6

2.4. The Dates The dates chosen for the project were 25/26 February and 4/5 March. These dates were chosen for practical purposes relating to funding and also the fact that the February/March period has historically been one of the more ‘average’ periods in terms of police recorded violence and disorder. No specific events likely to impact on crime and disorder occurred on these weekends, although the weekend of 4/5 March is likely to be the first after ‘pay day’ for the majority of people.

7

3. Historical Context Summary Levels of Police recorded Criminal Damage, Violent Crime outside the home and complaints regarding nuisance and disorder in Bath city centre during the time of the survey were roughly average within the April 2004 – March 2005 period.

This section provides some retrospective context to the findings presented in this report both in terms of recorded crime (criminal damage and violent crime) taking place and also in terms of how many complaints regarding nuisance and disorder were recorded by the police. The time scales analysed are between 11:00 and 03:00 on the evening/morning of Friday/Saturday and Saturday/Sunday by week throughout the year. The results from April 2004 to March 2005 are presented, by week in Fig 2.

Fig 2. STORM, Nuisance and Disorder Complaints and crimes of violence and criminal damage, by Weekend, Bath City Centre (Fri Night/Sat Morning, Sat Night/ Sun Morning, April 2004 to March 20054 25

Results

15

Incidents by Type

10 5 Incidents by Route No. (Temporal Analysis)

Perceptions of Safety 0

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

No. incidents/calls

20 Incidents by Night

Conclusions and Further Action Methodology

Week Violent Cr ime

Cr iminal Damage

Nuisance and Disorder Calls

Nightvision Weekends

The specific nights on which the project was conducted fell within weeks 9 and 10 of 2005. The first weekend saw fewer than average incidents of violent crime and criminal damage but greater than average nuisance and disorder calls. The second weekend saw fewer than average violent crime offences but a greater than average number of criminal damage offences and nuisance and disorder calls. In all cases the figures are within one standard deviation of the average. This concurs with the belief that this period exists as roughly average within the annual experience of the City Centre.

Overall, a greater number of incidents were recorded during week 10 than week 9.

In terms of environmental background, the weeks did not coincide with any major sporting or social event in the City. Week 10 was highlighted as being the first weekend after the majority of paydays.

The weather on the specific night was generally very cold, being slightly above or slightly below freezing on each night.

The small number of police-recorded incidents recorded means that further micro-level analysis to specific day are not possible without compromising individual identity.

4

Source: Police Recorded Crime, Bath CMU, 2004/5; Avon and Somerset STORM Command and Control calls for Nuisance and Disorder, 2004/5

8

4. Findings – Overview by Category The primary results of the NightVision survey as a proportion of all physical features and behaviours analysed are presented in Figs. 3 and 4 Fig 3 – NightVision findings, Behaviour.

(F) 2%

(E) 7%

(D) 9%

(A) 11%

(B) 45%

(C) 26%

(A) Aggress ion or int imidating behaviour (B) Nuisance Noise (C) Obvious ly Intox icated Persons (D) Urinating or Vomiting (E) Street Drink ing (F) Violent Criminal Behaviour

Nuisance noise was the most commonly recorded behaviour (149 incidents over the four nights, duplicates removed) followed by obviously intoxicated persons (89 recorded incidents over the four nights, duplicates removed). It must be noted that nuisance noise as a concept was left to the discretion of individual surveyors to define.

Fig 4 – NightVision findings, physical features

(J) 3% (I) 22%

(G) 42%

(H) 33% (G) Dropped Litter /Food (H) Bottles, Cans or Broken Glass (I) Urine and Vomit (J) Cr iminal Damage

Dropped Litter/Food (214 incidents over the four nights, duplicates removed) and Bottles Cans or Broken Glass (167 incidents over the four nights, duplicates removed) were the most commonly recorded physical features.

Geographical analysis of each of these specific groups can be found in section 6.

9

5. Findings – Results by time, date and surveyor group Summary The greatest volume of incidents were recorded on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings.

The final route (02:30) had the greatest concentration of incidents, although the greatest concentration of ‘nuisance noise’ incidents was recorded during route 2 (12:30) and dropped litter/food and bottles and broken glass experienced the most number of incidents during route 3 (01:30).

Although persons within the ‘student’ and ‘health care professional’ group recorded more incidents than those from the ‘residents’ and ‘licensees’ groups, there is evidence to suggest that it is individual perception, rather than membership of a specific group, which has the greatest impact on overall findings.

Table 1 details the volume of the numbers of each category recorded, by night with objects in situ spatially aggregated to remove duplicate viewings.

Table 1 - Results by night, duplicates removed

Behaviour (A) Aggression or intimidating behaviour (B) Nuisance Noise (C) Obviously Intoxicated Persons (D) Urinating or Vomiting (E) Street Drinking (F) Violent Criminal Behaviour Physical Features (G) Dropped Litter/Food (H) Bottles, Cans or Broken Glass (I) Urine and Vomit (J) Criminal Damage Total

25-Feb

26-Feb

4-Mar

5-Mar

Total

5 2 8 3 5 1

13 66 31 11 9 1

7 25 14 5 2 1

8 37 32 12 7 2

37 149 89 31 24 6

7 9 5 0 47

74 46 37 7 336

35 40 16 1 169

79 59 44 8 317

214 167 111 17 869

Table 2 analyses the results by route number (and estimated time) with duplicates removed.

Table 2 – Results by route number, duplicates removed Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Grand Total (23:30) (00:30) (01:30) (02:30) Behaviour (A) Aggression or intimidating behaviour (B) Nuisance Noise (C) Obviously Intoxicated Persons (D) Urinating or Vomiting (E) Street Drinking (F) Violent Criminal Behaviour Physical Features (G) Dropped Litter/Food (H) Bottles, Cans or Broken Glass (I) Urine and Vomit (J) Criminal Damage Total

10

7 51 17 7 9 0

4 38 22 8 5 2

3 29 25 8 4 1

23 31 25 8 6 3

37 149 89 31 24 6

56 36 18 4 210

49 45 30 3 214

61 53 29 2 218

48 33 34 8 227

214 167 111 17 869

The most significant number of incidents and features were recorded on the Saturday Night/Sunday Morning surveys, which represent 75% (635) of all recorded incidents. The second weekend contained the greatest volume of recorded incidents (486), this relates to recorded incidents and environmental issues (see Section 3, Historical Context) Route 4 (02:30) is notable as the route with the highest volume of all categories, although there are limited variations between categories. Route 2 (12:30) is notable for the greatest concentration of recorded Nuisance Noise incidents and Route 3 (01:30) is notable for the greatest concentration of dropped litter/food and bottles cans and broken glass.

The method of recording was designed to allow for an assessment of the subjective nature of a number of the categories analysed. As a result direct comparisons between nights must be tempered by the different experiences and personal beliefs of each surveyor. Further analysis of this factor can be found within the analysis of each specific category (See section 6, Findings – By Category).

Table 3 analyses the results by surveyor group.

Table 3 – Results by surveyor group Health Care Behaviour Professionals Licensees Residents 7 12 (A) Aggression or intimidating behaviour 7 41 36 37 (B) Nuisance Noise 17 16 24 (C) Obviously Intoxicated Persons 6 8 (D) Urinating or Vomiting 12 7 6 3 (E) Street Drinking 2 1 2 (F) Violent Criminal Behaviour Physical Features (G) Dropped Litter/Food 67 39 26 (H) Bottles, Cans or Broken Glass 70 22 29 (I) Urine and Vomit 44 14 16 (J) Criminal Damage 3 5 5 Total 264 158 162

Students 11 35 32 5 8 1 82 46 37 4 261

63% (547) of all incidents were recorded by ‘Health Care Professionals’ and ‘Students’. This concentration is specifically notable for ‘dropped litter/food’, ‘nuisance noise’ and ‘urine and vomit’.

‘Licensees’ recorded the least number of incidents, followed by ‘Residents’.

It must be noted that the high numbers of incidents recorded by students relates to two particular surveyors who accounted for 12% and 15% of the total findings In addition, two health care professionals accounted for 11% of the total findings each. The expected breakdown per surveyor would be 6%. It is believed that other than in providing roughly balanced demographics for surveyors, the specific choice of surveyor groups has not had a particularly significant impact on the findings.

In addition the small scale of the surveyor groups means that these findings cannot be seen to relate to the group population as a whole. When coupled with the fact that individual surveyors findings vary within the groups, then it may be seen that the results relate significantly to individual findings regardless of the surveyor group.

11

6. Findings - Results by Category Summary Analysis has been conducted on geography, the likelihood of surveyor perceptions impacting on overall findings and the volume of incidents over specific nights.

Geographical ‘hotspot’s were identified for a large number of the categories recorded. Of particular note, are: x x x x

The passageway between Walcot Street and George Street, for aggression or intimidating behaviour, bottles cans and broken glass and urine and vomit The area surrounding the Abbey and Orange Grove for nuisance noise, obviously intoxicated persons and urine and vomit.

Street drinking being primarily concentrated around the Bus Station area Dropped litter and food being primarily concentrated around the location of late night fast food establishments.

When analysed, the following categories are deemed likely to relate to individual perception: Aggression or intimidating behaviour, nuisance noise and obviously intoxicated persons. The remaining categories appear to have had no direct relationship with individual surveyors

A number of categories have been mapped using specialised software to identify geographical patterns. The findings are presented by means of ‘‘hotspot’’ maps whereby clusters of incidents are analysed and graded according to density. In addition, it can also be assumed that the greater the density, the higher probability of an incident occurring in a specific area.

The specific volume of incidents recorded by volume and by night has also been recorded. It is important to note that ‘hotspot’s identified in this way, in terms of certain categories, may relate to specific surveyors personal perceptions.

In a number of cases, the volume of incidents recorded was too few to allow for useful ‘hotspot’ mapping to be conducted. Further analysis of these categories can be found in Section 7 (Unmappable categories)

12

6.1.

Behaviour – Aggression or intimidating behaviour Fig. 5 – ‘Hotspot’ Mapping (All nights and routes)

Notable geographical ‘hotspot’s for this incident type are: the passageway between The Paragon and Walcot Street, the James St West ‘Pigeon Park’ area, Orange Grove area and the area surrounding the bus station.

This category of incidents is likely to relate to individuals perceptions. Although notable, there is no statistically significant correlation between individual surveyors and the location of these incidents, meaning that the subjective definition of this subject cannot be proven.

Table 4 – Volume of incidents – Aggression or intimidating behaviour Day\Route 25/2 26/2 4/3 5/3

1 3 4 0 0

2 0 1 1 2

3 1 1 0 1

4 1 8 8 6

Total 5 14 9 9

The greatest concentration of incidents was recorded during the 4th route (02:30) and there was no specific concentration around the days, excepting the first day where only a single occurrence was recorded.

13

6.2.

Behaviour - Nuisance Noise

Fig. 6 – ‘Hotspot’ mapping (All nights and routes)

Notable geographical ‘hotspot’s for this incident type are the Orange Grove area, Sawclose and the Mineral Hospital, Broad Street and the George Street/Milsom Street junction.

This category of incidents relates to individuals perceptions. It is important to stress the subjective nature of this reporting. For example, anecdotally it was noted that some surveyors were recording empathically (by imagining that they were in bed, asleep at the time) and others recorded from the perspective of a pedestrian.

14

Table 5 – Volume of incidents – Nuisance Noise Day\Route 25/2 26/2 4/3 5/3

1 0 29 4 18

2 1 22 8 7

3 1 10 7 11

4 0 18 9 4

Total 2 79 28 40

The greatest concentration of incidents was recorded during the Saturday Night/Sunday morning periods.

6.3.

Behaviour - Obviously Intoxicated Persons Fig 7. – ‘Hotspot’ Mapping (All nights and routes)

The main notable ‘hotspot’ for this particular category is the ‘Bog Island’ area. Minor ‘hotspot’s are observable in Sawclose, George St. Milsom St. Junction and Walcot Street.

A correlation accurate to 95% exists between the location of these incidents and specific surveyors suggesting that this category most relates to individual perceptions.

Table 6 – Volume of incidents – Obviously Intoxicated Persons Day\Route 1 25/2 3 26/2 9 4/3 1 5/3 4

2 2 8 2 10

3 2 5 6 12

4 2 10 6 7

Total 9 32 15 33

The greatest concentration of incidents was recorded during the Saturday Night/Sunday morning routes. There is no particular emergent pattern with regards to time of night.

15

6.4.

Behaviour – Urinating or Vomiting

Fig. 8 – ‘Hotspot’ Mapping (All nights and routes)

The main notable ‘hotspot’ for this particular category is the corridor between the Paragon and Walcot Street. Minor ‘hotspot’s are notable on George Street and in the Abbey/Orange Grove area.

There was no degree of correlation between surveyors and the volume of incidents suggesting a consistent accuracy in recording.

Table 7 – Volume of incidents – Urinating or Vomiting Day\Route 1 25/2 1 26/2 5 4/3 0 5/3 1

2 1 0 3 4

3 1 1 0 6

4 0 5 2 1

Total 3 11 5 12

The greatest concentration of incidents was recorded during the Saturday Night/Sunday morning routes. The small volume of incidents makes further detailed analysis difficult.

16

6.5.

Behaviour – Street Drinking

Fig. 9 – ‘Hotspot’ Mapping (All nights and routes)

The main ‘hotspot’ is concentrated outside the Police Station and bus station area. Minor ‘hotspot’s are notable in the St James Parade area, Sawclose, Pierrepont Street and New Bond Street.

No correlation between surveyors and incidents was recorded; suggesting a degree of consistency amongst individuals

Table 8 – Volume of incidents – Street Drinking Day\Route 1 25/2 4 26/2 4 4/3 0 5/3 1

2 1 1 1 2

3 0 2 1 1

4 1 2 0 3

Total 6 9 2 7

There is a limited concentration of incidents during the first route (11:30).

17

6.6.

Physical Features – Dropped Litter/Food

Fig. 10 – ‘Hotspot’ Mapping (All nights all routes)

The main ‘hotspot’s are roughly correspondent with the location of late night food venues, with the exception of the Abbey and High Street area, which contains a taxi rank and bus stop.

No correlation between surveyors and incidents was recorded, suggesting a degree of consistency amongst individuals. For example, the low rates recorded on the first survey night have been consistent across surveyors.

.

18

Table 9– Volume of incidents – Dropped Litter/Food Day\Route 1 25/2 4 26/2 14 4/3 11 5/3 27

2 0 22 11 16

3 2 29 10 20

4 1 17 8 22

Total 7 82 40 85

The greatest concentration of incidents was recorded during the Saturday Night/Sunday morning routes. The 25/2 routes experienced exceptionally low incidents. This could possibly relate to cold weather on that specific night.

6.7.

Physical Features - Bottles, Cans and Broken Glass Fig. 11 – ‘Hotspot’ Mapping (All routes all nights)

The main ‘hotspot’ area surrounds the corridor between Walcot Street and the Paragon. Minor ‘hotspot’s appear around Orange Grove, the High Street and Sawclose.

No correlation between surveyors and incidents was recorded, suggesting a degree of consistency amongst individuals. For example, the low rates recorded on the first survey night have been consistent across surveyors.

Table 10 – Volume of incidents – Bottles, Cans and Broken glass Day\Route 1 25/2 3 26/2 6 4/3 11 5/3 16

2 2 11 18 14

3 2 19 12 20

4 2 13 5 13

Total 9 49 46 63

The 25/2 routes experienced exceptionally low incidents. A peak is notable on the 5/3 night.

19

6.8.

Physical Features - Urine and Vomit

Fig. 12 – ‘Hotspot’ Mapping (All routes all nights)

The main ‘hotspot’s are the corridor between Walcot Street and the Paragon, Milsom Street and the area surrounding the Abbey. This follows the patterns recorded in section 6.4 (above).

No correlation between surveyors and incidents was recorded suggesting a degree of consistency amongst individuals.

Table 11 – Volume of incidents – Urine and Vomit Day\Route 1 25/2 2 26/2 2 4/3 6 5/3 8

2 2 15 2 11

3 0 12 4 13

4 1 14 6 13

Total 5 43 18 45

The 25/2 routes experienced a low number of incidents. Higher levels were recorded on Saturday Night/Sunday mornings.

20

7. Findings – Un-mappable Categories Summary Due to the low number of incidents, Violent Criminal Behaviour and Criminal Damage could not be mapped for various reasons. There were five incidents of violent criminal behaviour recorded throughout the course of the project.

A large number of incidents were reported as criminal damage, significantly larger than the number of offences recorded by the police on the specific nights. Further research would be necessary to analyse the nature of this inconsistency.

Two categories did not record a sufficient number of incidents to provide a reliable base for accurate ‘hotspot’ mapping. These incidents were violent criminal behaviour and criminal damage.

Behaviour – Violent Criminal Behaviour A total of five incidents of this category occurred over the survey period. Each incident appeared to follow different causes although protagonists were believed to have been drinking in each case. The incidents were spread out evenly throughout the survey nights and all took place during or after the second route.

In each case the PCSO escorts intervened and if necessary, the Police took further action.

Physical Features – Criminal Damage Table 12 details the number of incidents by night and by route Table 12 – Volume of Incidents – Criminal Damage Day\Route 25/2 26/2 4/3 5/3

1 2 0 2 4

2 1 1 1 3

3 2 0 0 2

4 3 0 5 8

Total 8 1 8 17

Of these incidents, it is known that one was reported as a specific criminal damage offence. This provides a disparity of 1/18 against recorded crime. The recording standard used within this project is not sufficient to allow for further analysis of the nature of these incidents. Several hypotheses can be suggested to explain this disparity: x

Under reporting of criminal damage offences by members of the public

x

Surveyors recording damage to cars or buildings that was not related to criminal behaviour.

x

Inaccurate or wide-scale time recording on criminal damage offences caused by victims being absent at point of offence meaning that it may not be possible to draw accurate links between observed and reported incidents. For example, vandalism to a car which occurred in the early evening may not have been included as a recorded incident in Section 3 (Historical Context) but may have been recorded as an incident by surveyors

Further research into this issue would be necessary before statements can be made about the impact of this project on criminal damage as a criminal offence.

Contextually, problem analysis work has defined the entire city centre area as a ‘hotspot’ for criminal damage, particularly regarding damage to motor vehicles.

21

8. Further Comments and Perceptions of Safety Summary On average, surveyors felt ‘fairly safe’ in the City Centre. Where incidents of ‘fairly unsafe’ or ‘neither safe nor unsafe’ were recorded, they related to interaction with isolated incidents of ‘violent criminal behaviour’, it is thought that this may relate to the presence of the PCSOs. A number of areas may be highlighted as changing individual’s perceptions of safety although these areas, and overall feelings of safety vary according to each individual questioned.

Of the ‘other’ incidents and physical features recorded the most common related to feeling ‘unsafe and at risk’ due to speeding and dangerously driven motor vehicles.

8.1. Perceptions of Safety After each route was completed, surveyors were de-briefed; this consisted of general questions on their perceptions of safety while they were conducting the work. Surveyors were asked how safe they felt on a scale from 1-5, where 1 was very unsafe and 5 was very safe.

The group that felt most unsafe were Students, whose average feeling of safety was ‘Fairly Safe’. The group that felt safest were Health Care Professionals, whose average feeling of safety was ‘very safe’. The third night (5/3) was deemed the safest with the average feeling of safety recorded as ‘very safe’.

In the small number of cases where feeling of safety fell below ‘fairly safe’ it was related at all times to witnessing or being on the periphery of specific incidents.

This feeling of safety is also likely to relate to the fact that the city centre environment was anecdotally deemed by surveyors to have been ‘quiet’ on the nights.

Overall feeling of safety is also likely to have been affected by the presence of the Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) providing plain clothed security to the surveyors.

‘I would have felt uncomfortable… if I was on my own.’

Student, Night 2 ‘The presence of the PCSO was very reassuring.’

Health Care Professional, Night 1 Although the presence of the PCSOs can be seen to have had an impact on the general feelings of safety from a health and safety perspective it was not deemed suitable to conduct the project without some kind of security being put in place for surveyors.

8.2. The Geography of Safety During the de-brief, surveyors were asked to detail specific areas where they felt safe and unsafe.

The Orange Grove area attracted the largest number of comments for feelings of safety. This is thought to relate to the presence of Taxi Marshals within this area ‘…(there was) lots of activity at the taxi rank but (it was) well policed.’

Licensee, Night 4 ‘The taxi arrangements by the Abbey are very impressive.’

Resident, Night 4

22

The existence of a specific permanent visible response to issues in this area can be seen to impact on individuals’ perceptions of safety, despite continuous ‘‘hotspot’s’ having been defined in those areas.

Other specific features noted were street furniture on Walcot Street and the lighting placed on trees in Kingsmead Square.

‘The bike rack in Walcot Street makes an impact, makes me feel safer.’

Student, Night 4

‘The lights on the Kingsmead Square tree made me feel safer, I liked them.’

Licensee, Night 3

Other locations noted as areas where surveyors felt safe were Milsom Street, George Street and ‘Bog Island’. More information regarding the reason for the individual feeling safe in these areas was not provided.

Seventeen comments were made regarding the quiet nature of the city during the surveys.

‘I was surprised how quiet it was, I felt safe and relaxed at all times.’

Health Care Professional, Night 1

‘There was a quiet and happy atmosphere.’

Health Care Professional, Night 3

Environmental factors, most significantly the cold, are likely to relate strongly to this, resulting in individuals being less likely to linger on the streets after leaving licensed premises.

Surveyors also detailed areas where they felt particularly unsafe. Of specific note was the Walcot Street area.

‘I would have felt uncomfortable in Walcot Street if I was on my own...(and) felt less safe on the paragon steps.’

Student, Night 2 ‘The stairs from the Paragon to Walcot Street are horrible.’

Resident, Night 2

Groups of ‘youths’ were also noted as making surveyors feel unsafe ‘Heavy gathering outside Babylon of intimidating youths.’

Licensee, Night 3

Finally, it is important to stress that there was no consistency between surveyors in terms of feelings of safety. ‘ (I felt) fairly unsafe, late Bath is not the place it used to be…’

Resident, Night 3 ‘Genuinely the most quiet and unintimidating evening I have ever spent in Bath.’

Student, Night 3 The above provides a specific example of the importance of individual’s perceptions in understanding the makeup of the night-time economy.

The subjective nature of this level of research means that further context is required to make specific comments and recommendations regarding practice and policy changes to the built environment of the City Centre.

23

Appendix 1 – NightVision Routes Route 1 – Top End of City Centre

Route 2 – Bottom End of City Centre

24

Appendix 2 – Recommendations for further Action (Referencing sections from the main document are provided in brackets) Policy Based Recommendations That this report be made available on a public web site to provide contextual evidence for individuals and agencies in informing licensing debates and decisions. (Whole document) That the report is considered by all agencies examining a response to alcohol related crime and disorder. (Whole Document) Practice Based Recommendations That the relevant sections of this report be highlighted to relevant agencies to assist in targeting resources. x

Findings relating to ‘hotspot’s for ‘aggression/intimidating behaviour’, ‘obviously intoxicated persons’, ‘urinating and vomiting’, ‘street drinking’ be passed on to the Police to assist in targeting resources. (Section 6)

x

Findings relating to ‘nuisance noise’ are passed on to the Environmental Health department to ensure that no regulatory offences have been committed. (Section 6)

x

Findings relating to ‘hotspot’s for ‘dropped food/litter’ and ‘broken bottles/glass’ on the street be forwarded to the Cleansing department of Bath and North East Somerset Council to align potential new priorities for service provision. (Section 6)

x

Comments made regarding Taxi Marshals are passed on to relevant decision makers in the Police and Community Safety and Drug Partnership to highlight positive feedback on the project (Section 8)

x

Comments regarding the visual impact of specific areas of the City on perceptions of safety be passed on to the Community Safety and Drug Partnership to assess value to further discussions of the public realm (Section 8)

Research based recommendations That the NightVision project is repeated, preferably within the July/August period to provide further context to these findings during the summer period.

That work is conducted to assess a ‘night-time population’ of the City Centre.

That a methodological guide be produced to allow other agencies and organisations to conduct similar work and therefore provide greater context for evidence based work, both locally and regionally.

That a scoping exercise is conducted into the reporting rates of criminal damage, utilising the British Crime Survey and other mechanisms in order to assess the accuracy of the 1 in 17 findings in section (7) and to assess the reliability of related hypotheses.

25