Staying in the comfort zone

Has anyone noticed that to date there have been no proposals for alcohol disorder zones (ADZs) in England and Wales?

What a good law. Roundly condemned by everyone concerned, on both sides of the argument, ADZs, as they are called, were trumpeted by the Government as a good solution to inner-city evening disorder.

Although even the draughtsmen had trouble with the wording of the regulations and the advice on how to implement them, this did not seem to deter that handful of ministers who supported them.

So what do they think of the idea now?

The mere fact that councils have been slow to put the idea forward should indicate that this is not one of the "weapons" against alcohol-fuelled disorder that the Home Office can claim as a success. On the contrary, most sensible councils recognised early on that condemning a whole area to this official notoriety, by their own hand, would be entirely counter-productive.

So ADZs are destined to join the "froth law" and provisional statements as ideas cooked up in a ministry office somewhere, by people with little knowledge and no understanding of the licensed trade.

However, the so-called cumulative impact zones do not even have the benefit of legislative back-up to call their own. They do not exist in the Licensing Act. The word "saturation" is not even mentioned. They are entirely a creation of the civil servants who wrote the statutory Guidance to the Licensing Act.

But they are a far more popular weapon than ADZs. There are a number of towns and cities that have used them, and more are in contemplation. They set the licensed trade something of a test, in terms of the introduction of new premises and methods of operation.

In spite of the ruling in the Guildford case, involving the hours of operation of a JD Wetherspoon outlet, the Guidance makes it clear that cumulative impact should not be used to control or standardise opening hours. It should be implemented only after a very careful and considered review of crime-and-disorder statistics; it should be limited in scope — unlike the massive zone proposed in Brighton — and should be regularly evaluated to see whether it is still relevant.

The basis of this idea is that it is the concentration of licensed premises in a particular area that cause the problem. This is, of course, highly debatable in itself — one or two premises can be equally capable of being the magnet for disorderly youngsters and rowdy behaviour. But many cities do have a clearly identifiable area where people go on a Saturday night to obtain alcohol and entertainment.

Not all of these deserve to be turned into saturation areas, because the problems (such as they are) can be controlled and contained by the police. The council keep them under review, but do not change their licensing policy.

It should also be remembered that saturation policies should not affect existing premises in respect of conditions or hours of trading.

Unfortunately, they often do, because the licensing committee will be aware of the declaration, and although it should only apply to new applications, they are likely to take it into consideration if a variation is sought. It is up to the existing outlet to address this head-on, and show that a change in their method of operation will not add to the cumulative impact problems in that area.

One other point: cumulative impact areas have to be widely advertised and a period of consultation undertaken, which must include the licensed trade. If an application for a new licence is made during this period, it should not be subject to the saturation rules and should be judged entirely on its merits.