Small Retailers in Deprived Areas
Best practice St Leonards
SRDA Good Practice Summary
St Leonards Business Security Scheme - effective targeting and
problem solving
The Central St Leonards and Bohemia Road Retail and Business Security Scheme in Hastings received nearly £240,000 of Small Retailers in Deprived Areas (SRDA) funding in 2001/02.
The initial proposal aimed to install a basic package of security measures in all eligible premises in the Central St Leonards shopping area. The project was subsequently extended to include businesses in Bohemia Road, less than a mile away. The aim was to reduce levels of burglary, shoplifting and robbery against businesses.
Intelligence/Context of the scheme
The scheme focused on 116 shops and businesses covering 19 roads in the Central St Leonards shopping centre, and 18 shops in Bohemia Road.
After Hastings town centre, St Leonards is the largest shopping centre in Hastings and larger than all other district centres by some margin. It provides a wide range of local convenience shops, and includes some specialist retailers, such as electrical goods, hardware and fabrics, and a cluster of antique shops. The shopping area is adjacent to Warrior Square railway station and short-term on-street parking is available.
The area is generally attractive and its Edwardian and Victorian architectural heritage is recognised by the fact that most of Central St Leonards falls within a conservation area. However, many buildings are in need of refurbishment. The area has steadily declined over many years with the contraction of traditional seaside holiday activity.
The Bohemia Road shopping area caters for local general shopping needs, and also includes specialist retailers such as a baby equipment shop. The area has tended to have a high level of vacancies over a long period, and to the south of the target area there has been a gradual drift away from commercial to residential uses (Hastings Local Plan, 2003).
Targeting of the project area
The Central St Leonards area was targeted for this project based on analysis as part of the National Intelligence Model process. The Police Tasking Group had identified the target area as a burglary OTD (other than dwelling) hotspot. Records showed that an alarm was activated in only a small percentage of crimes – this could be down to inaccurate recording, but could also indicate a low level of alarm installation.
The project team also identified several other risk factors for the area, namely:
-
a high proportion of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) – and a transfer of problem tenants from social housing to HMOs;
-
a high concentration of asylum seekers living in the target area;
-
around 300 street drinkers in Hastings, many of whom live or congregate in the target area; and,
-
that a Home Office Burglary Reduction Initiative was in place to target harden HMOs, which could leave commercial properties more vulnerable.
The Hastings Crime and Disorder Strategy 2002/05 included reducing the number of burglaries at premises other than dwellings, within the wider priority to reduce burglary generally, so this project fitted in well with the strategic aims of the CDRP.
The SRDA project forms one strand of a wider community safety and regeneration package in Hastings. The area has received significant funding from many sources over recent years, including:
-
an Single Regeneration Budget-funded Shop Watch Coordinator operating in both Hastings and St Leonards; and,
-
a Home Office-funded street warden scheme established during 2002 to cover Hastings and St Leonards. The wardens are based in an office above Warrior Square station, adjacent to the SRDA project area, and operate from 10am to 10pm, patrolling the town centres and seafront, tackling anti-social behaviour and helping the police monitor street drinking.
Central St Leonards is also a priority for high profile policing when spare police capacity is available.
Interventions
The bid was to install a basic package of security measures in all eligible premises to bring them up to a common standard of security. Some additional items, such as internal CCTV and laminated glass, were also available to priority premises with particular needs.
Alongside the interventions available for individual businesses, the scheme included two wider measures:
-
the installation of improved lighting to Marina Court, a small seafront precinct slightly removed from the main Central St Leonards shopping area; and,
-
the addition of two on-street CCTV cameras, one in Central St Leonards and one on Bohemia Road. These were added into the area’s existing CCTV system, monitored by a control room in Eastbourne.
Initially a basic package of security and surveillance interventions was agreed between the police and the council. On this basis, the Community Safety Sergeant and a Crime Prevention Officer consulted with businesses. They carried out a survey of around 210 businesses which included assessments of existing security measures, the extent to which the business had been victimised in the past 12 months, and whether the business had been the victim of any racially motivated incidents. Business owners were also given an opportunity to identify other relevant problems or issues.
The project team now considers that they should have made certain that they established who the legal owner of each property was at the outset. In some cases, the contact details they collected during the survey were of the person manning the shop at the time that the team called. This caused some delays further later in the project when, for example, the architect needed to contact the legal owner to obtain permission for work to be carried out.
Time for consultation was limited. The police survey was carried out over a period of 10 days in November 2001 and was ‘a fairly quick in and out assessment of shops needs’ (Community Safety Sergeant, April 2003). The project team was concerned that some issues might have been overlooked during the consultation. However, feedback from the survey was taken into account in the design of the package of interventions. The project team had considered, and subsequently rejected internal CCTV, for inclusion in the package, however they included it on the basis of feedback from businesses.
The final package of interventions agreed by the project team is underpinned by situational crime prevention theory, and in particular the principle that crime can be prevented by increasing the effort involved (target hardening), or increasing risk (CCTV, lighting and mirrors). Figure 1 shows how the proposed interventions mapped onto the initial aims and objectives of the project.
Figure 1: Initial aims and objectives with proposed actions and interventions
|
Aim/objective |
Proposed actions and interventions |
|
Reduce levels of recorded crime against retailers and businesses in the target area for burglary |
Door locks, window locks, burglar alarms, security lighting, internal CCTV, external CCTV, improved street lighting (Marina Court), laminated glass, grills/shutters, gates, signs |
|
… for shoplifting |
Internal CCTV, convex mirrors, signs |
|
… for robbery |
Till screens, cash boxes, external CCTV, improved street lighting |
Targeting businesses within the project area
The project team was keen to appropriately prioritise businesses within the project area. The information from the police survey was fed into a scoring system designed to facilitate the targeting of the right premises on the basis of vulnerability to crime and disorder, including racially motivated incidents, and how essential each outlet was for the local area. The scoring system was agreed by the police and the council. All agreed that it was important to have a 'clear yardstick' in case of disputes afterwards (Community Safety Sergeant, April 2003).
A total of 15 points were available to each business in the scoring system. Up to 10 points were awarded based on the type of business, with businesses that were considered as offering essential goods and services, for example grocery shops and launderettes, scoring more highly than less crucial businesses, such as antique shops. Up to three points were awarded to each business on the basis of the information collected on levels of reported and unreported crime. Importantly, businesses taking part in the police survey were not aware that their responses would be used to 'score' them so there was no incentive to exaggerate their responses. Finally, two points were awarded to businesses that had experienced incidents of racial harassment.
In general, businesses with the highest scores (14 or 15 points) received an average of £3,000 funding per unit, compared to around £750 per unit for those businesses with the lowest scores (2 or 3 points).
Implementation and involvement
A multi-agency project team managed the scheme, which meant that several fields of knowledge and experience could be drawn upon. The project bid was co-ordinated by the Community Safety Sergeant and Hastings Borough Council's Community Safety Co-ordinator. The Community Safety Sergeant then took ownership of the project and an Assistant Engineer from Hastings Borough Council was brought in as project manager with responsibility for overseeing installation. An architect was hired to manage the installation work on a day-to-day basis, including managing the various contractors. The architect's post was joint funded by Hastings Borough Council and Sussex Police.
The Community Safety Sergeant and the Hastings Borough Council project manager hadn't worked together previously but both felt that they had formed an effective working relationship.
'we made decisions quickly…I guess we are the same sort of level in terms of where we are in our respective organisations…we both make decisions and between us work out any problem…he wouldn't go and have to ask other people and I would do the same' (Community Safety Sergeant, March 2003).
Installation issues
The low standard of physical maintenance of some properties caused problems when installing the security equipment. In particular, the electrical wiring in some of the properties was substandard. Although some businesses improved their wiring in order to receive SRDA equipment, others refused to bring it up to a lawful standard and were therefore unable to receive electrical items such as lighting or burglar alarms.
The proposed basic security package had also included external shutters/grills, and the police survey showed that there was demand from businesses for this equipment. However, most of the shopping area is classified as a conservation area and the project team found that planning restrictions prevented the installation of this equipment at many premises.
Problems with use of internal CCTV systems
Early in the installation period, the project team became concerned that retailers were not managing their internal CCTV system appropriately. The Architect and CCTV Subcontractor attempted to address this by supplying businesses with advice and relevant information leaflets. However, it became clear that there were a number of problems in the way CCTV was being used by some businesses. This included issues such as:
-
staff members across several businesses remained unaware of how to operate their systems - how and when to change tapes etc
-
several businesses had failed to notify the Data Protection Register
-
many businesses were not displaying CCTV notices; failing to number and rotate tapes and were leaving tapes in unsecured positions.
The project team took a proactive approach to tackling this problem. The Sussex Police CCTV Manager helped the project team to carry out spot checks of three businesses and it was found that the concerns were well founded. As a result, a CCTV checklist was drawn up and the Crime Prevention Officer visited all the businesses that received internal CCTV. None of the shops had registered the system with the Information Commissioner and only five businesses were operating the CCTV system in a way that the project team considered satisfactory.
The Community Safety Sergeant believes that the limited time available for survey and installation prohibited sufficient analysis of the need for CCTV and planning for its use.
'Compulsory training in the use of CCTV should have been a condition of receiving the equipment…Evidence that data protection registration has been complied with should have been a prerequisite [for receiving the equipment]' (Community Safety Sergeant, February 2003)
In fact, most businesses interviewed (in May 2003) felt they had received sufficient training from the CCTV subcontractor. However, it is likely that they were referring to training in terms of the practicalities of operating the equipment rather than the responsibilities for operating in line with data protection legislation.
No SRDA funding was available for CCTV training, however the project team drew in the Sussex Enterprise Shopwatch Coordinator (funded by SRB) to set up a training course for the businesses operating internal CCTV. Around half of the 23 businesses attended the course.
Engaging national retail chains
Several of the businesses in the Central St Leonards area were part of national retail chains. The Community Safety Sergeant was keen to include these businesses in the project as they qualified on the basis of size (floor space) and offered essential services, however this was not possible due to difficulties with procurement arrangements.
'you can't engage with the local manager, you have to speak to a regional or national manager and I did do that, I really did try, but it wasn't possible' (Community Safety Sergeant, April 2003).
Outcomes
Suitability of the security equipment
With few exceptions, businesses were very pleased with the equipment they had received through the SRDA scheme. Whilst they had not changed the way they operated day-to-day, the majority of businesses interviewed reported that the measures had positively affected their general feelings of safety. Interestingly, businesses gave particularly positive feedback about the till screens, one of the simplest and cheapest items of equipment provided. They were described as 'absolutely fantastic' and as a 'good idea; dead easy' and had made staff feel safer (Business owners, May 2003).
The project team also felt very strongly that the introduction of internal CCTV had been less successful than some of the less sophisticated target hardening interventions, such as till screens and cash boxes. Certainly, a significant amount of the project team's time was taken up trying to tackle the unwillingness of businesses to take on responsibility for operating the CCTV systems appropriately. There is also a concern that CCTV evidence could be challenged in court because of the failure of the CCTV operators to conform with the Data Protection Act.
Another issue that emerged during the fieldwork was that a small minority of businesses was not using some of the equipment they had received through the scheme. For example, one business owner hadn't used his cash box and the project team suspected that another was not using his internal CCTV system. This problem might be a result of the consultation phase of the project. Although business owners were given the chance to suggest what equipment they wanted as part of the consultation, there was not enough time to explore in detail with business owners whether the equipment was suitable for their needs. Some business owners may have taken items without fully considering whether or not they would use them.
Crime and disorder
It is difficult to separate the impact of the SRDA scheme on recorded crime from the other initiatives in St Leonards, such as street wardens and high profile policing. Also, low and volatile levels of crime reporting and recording in relation to robbery and shoplifting make it difficult to assess impact. However, analysis of recorded burglary OTD offences in the project target area, a comparison area and the wider Hastings CDRP area suggests that the introduction of SRDA measures has helped to sustain the reductions in burglary offences achieved by the arrest of several prolific offenders.
|
Key Lessons and Good Practice
|
Contact details
For more information on this project please contact:
Sergeant Phil Mears philip.mears@sussex.pnn.police.uk Tel: 01424 456081Author: Debbie Moon, RDS, Government Office for the South East, July 2004.
Last update: 25 November 2004