vi

PRESENT: Councillors Rayner (Chairman), Bicknell, Hendry, Mrs Newbound, Stretton, and Werner.

Non-Member: Councillor Grey

Officers: Rupert Avery, Lorna Bowry, Stephen Brown, Amy Cannon, Ian Hunt, and Brian Martin.

Also Present: Inspector Mark Millward and Inspector John McDonald (Thames Valley Police)

Local Residents Addressing The Meeting: Joanne Gurney, Mr McKee, and Mr Davis.


APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

None

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Werner declared a personal interest in relation to the application for alley gating in Headington Close, Pinkneys Green, as his mother lived at 1 Tavistock Close. He remained in the meeting for this item.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

RESOLVED: That the order of procedure for hearings of applications by the Alley Gating Panel, as set out in the Agenda, be agreed, subject to adding the words ‘and interested parties’, after the words ‘local residents’.

ALLEY GATING – MURRIN ROAD, PINKNEYS GREEN

The Chairman welcomed all parties to the meeting, introduced the Panel Members and explained the procedure, which all indicated they understood.

Community Safety Officers

Mr Martin, the Community Safety Co-ordinator, introduced the application for Members to consider. The Panel noted that the consultation period for this application had run from 19 April 2007 to 31 May 2007, and 4 responses had been received objecting to the proposal to gate the alley in Murrin Road. These were from the Open Spaces Society, The Ramblers Association, Mr N Iley, and The Local Access Forum. Members were informed that 19 responses had been received in favour of the proposal, and these consisted of households of Murrin Road and Courthouse Road, together with Thames Valley Police.

Members also noted that Thames Valley Police were strongly in favour of alley gates being implemented in this case, and had submitted that it would have a direct positive impact on crime and the quality of life of the residents of Murrin Road. In addition, Mr Martin explained that there were a number of factors which supported the proposal to gate this alley and these were:

Ø There had been a significant number of crime reports to substantiate the request, supporting the case that anti-social behaviour was an issue in and around the alley. There had been 23 reports between May 2006 and February 2007, and a significant number before and since.
Ø On inspection, the alley was littered with glass alcohol bottles, metal cans, crisp packets and other litter, and there was also graffiti, damage to fences and the footpath. This supported the complaints from residents about anti-social behaviour taking place in the alley.
Ø The alternative route, should the alley be closed, was the same distance, if not shorter.

In light of all the above factors, Mr Martin concluded by recommending to the Panel that the alley in Murrin Road should be gated.

Highways Officer

Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, reported that he had been involved in the investigations and surveys in relation to this proposal, and in view of the evidence presented by the Police, commented that there was a case in this instance for the alley to be gated.

Questions to the Community Safety and Highways Officers

Councillor Mrs Newbound asked if the litter found in the alley was cleared, and the Community Safety Co-ordinator confirmed that it was.

Representations From Police

Inspector Millward commented on the level of anti-social behaviour that had occurred in the area over Halloween, and a large amount of litter, including glass bottles and cans had occurred. The Panel noted that Police Community Support Officers had been present all night to address the anti-social behaviour problems, and Inspector Millward also referred to the invaluable help from the local residents. However, he also commented that this level of resource was not sustainable. In light of these issues, together with the number of crime reports, Inspector Millward concluded by informing the Panel that the Police supported the gating of this alley.

Questions to Police Representatives

There were no questions.

Representations By Local Residents and Interested Parties

Joanne Gurney, local resident, addressed the Panel and highlighted the anti-social behaviour that was occurring in this alley, including scooters being driven at 2.00am. She also asked how long would it take for gates to be installed if this was the decision that was taken. The frustrations of the local residents were also outlined, in relation to the huge disruption being caused to them as a result of the anti-social behaviour and crime activity.

Mr McKee, a local resident, also addressed the Panel and asked what time would the gates be closed if they were installed. He also commented that the local residents were in favour of the gates being closed for 24 hours a day.

Questions to Local Residents/Interested Parties

Prior to asking questions, the Chairman invited the Highways Officer to answer the questions raised by the local residents, and it was noted that there was an anticipated 6 week lead-in time for the gates from the suppliers. It was also noted that the gates would be substantial high strength security gates, 6 feet high.

Councillor Werner asked the local residents to outline examples of the anti-social behaviour being undertaken, and the local residents reported that this had included car crime, i.e. cars being damaged with keys, windows being smashed, etc, scooters in the early hours of the morning, youths congregating in gangs and drinking alcohol and dealing in drugs. The local residents also commented that it was a 24 hour problem.

At this point, Inspector Millward commented that the Police view was that this was a small cul-de-sac and if the alley was gated, there would be no reason for the youths to gather at this point.

Summary From Community Safety and Highway Officers

Mr Martin, the Community Safety Co-ordinator summarised by recommending that, in light of the evidence that had been presented, the alley in Murrin Road should be gated 24 hours a day, all year round.

Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, summarised that, as a result of the evidence from the Police, there was a strong case for the alley to be closed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

At this point, the Legal Advisor reported that, should the alley gating order be agreed, there would be a 6-week objection period, commencing from the date of the Panel’s decision, following which, if no objections were received, the gates would be installed as soon as possible. Should an objection be received, this would be referred to the High Court for determination.

Decision

The Panel then retired to consider the application and evidence that had been presented. At 11.07am, the Panel reconvened to inform all present of their decision, and it was

RESOLVED: That the application for alley gating in Murrin Road, Pinkneys Green, Maidenhead, be agreed, and that the alley be gated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that the order be implemented with immediate effect.

ALLEY GATING – HEADINGTON CLOSE, PINKNEYS GREEN, MAIDENHEAD

The Chairman welcomed all parties to the meeting, introduced the Panel Members and explained the procedure, which all indicated they understood.

Community Safety Officers

Mr Martin, the Community Safety Co-ordinator, introduced the application for Members to consider. The Panel noted that the consultation period for this application had run from 19 April 2007 to 31 May 2007, and 6 responses had been received objecting to the proposal to gate the alley in Headington Close. These were from Thames Valley Police, The Open Spaces Society, The Ramblers Association, local residents, and The Local Access Forum. Members were informed that 15 responses had been received in favour of the proposal, and these consisted of households of Tavistock Close, Headington Close, and Courthouse Road.

Mr Martin also referred to the very sad instance that had occurred last year, when a lady had died following a burglary in this area.

Members were informed that the Police did not feel that the gating of this alley would have a substantial benefit to the local community. In addition, Mr Martin outlined some additional factors, which did not support the gating of this alley, as follows:

Ø There was a lack of crime reports to substantiate the request – 14 reports in 11 years, and although some of these had been serious, there was not enough evidence to suggest that gating the alleys would have prevented the crimes from taking place.
Ø The alley did not have high recorded levels of anti-social behaviour.
Ø The alternative route, should the alley be closed, is much longer, is of poor quality and much of it is along more alley ways.

In light of the above factors, Mr Martin concluded by stating that the evidence did not appear to be strong enough to support the gating of the alley.

Highways Officer

Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, reported that he had been involved in the investigations and surveys in relation to this proposal, and in view of the evidence presented in this case, commented that there was not enough evidence to support a case for the alley to be gated. Mr Brown also commented that the alternative route for walking, if the alley was gated, was longer.

Questions to the Community Safety and Highways Officers

Councillor Werner expressed surprise at Mr Martin’s comments about the death last year, and Mr Martin responded by stating that what he was saying was that the burglary may still have happened if the alley had been gated. Councillor Werner also questioned Mr Brown about the alternative route should this alley be gated, and that it would be a longer walk. Mr Brown commented that the alternative route was also not well lit or made up. Councillor Werner responded by stating that the alternative route was no longer, and that the alley in Headington Close had a ‘dog-leg’, which allowed people to hide behind, whereas the alternative alley was straight and better to walk along.

Councillor Bicknell asked the Community Safety Officers how many residents had responded from Headington Close, and the Panel was informed that 10 responses had been submitted.

Representations From Police

Inspector Millward reported that the crime figures that had been reported to the Police could not support closure of the alley. In relation to the death resulting from the burglary, he also commented that it was difficult to know whether the alley in Headington Close had contributed to the burglary taking place.

Questions to Police Representatives

Councillor Werner expressed surprise at Inspector Millward’s remarks about the burglary and the alley, and Inspector Millward commented that there was no way of knowing for sure whether the alley contributed to the burglary.

Representations By Local Residents and Interested Parties

Mr Davis, a local resident, commented that his garden backed on to the alley in Headington Close. He stated that he agreed with the comments by Councillor Werner, and that the alley was used as a ‘get-away’ for youths. Mr Davis also referred to graffiti in the alley, and commented that it was a meeting place for drug users. He also commented that he had had handbags and wallets thrown over his fence from the alley and had also seen stolen bicycles. He urged the Panel to close the alley 24 hours a day.

Questions To Local Residents/Interested Parties

Councillor Werner asked Mr Davis if this was a 24 hour problem, and Mr Davis confirmed it was. The Chairman asked Mr Davis if ‘genuine users’ used the alley, i.e. mothers with pushchairs, etc, and Mr Davis commented that local residents very rarely used it, as they were too frustrated of what was happening in the alley.

Summary From Community Safety and Highways Officers

Mr Martin, the Community Safety Co-ordinator, summarised by referring the Panel to his opening remarks, and the factors which he had outlined in recommending that there was not strong enough evidence to support the gating of this alley.

Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, reiterated his earlier remarks, in that in view of the evidence presented in this case, there was not enough evidence to support a case for the alley to be gated.

At this point, the Legal Advisor reported that, should the alley gating order be agreed, there would be a 6-week objection period, commencing from the date of the Panel’s decision, following which, if no objections were received, the gates would be installed as soon as possible. Should an objection be received, this would be referred to the High Court for determination. The Legal Advisor also sought clarification from the Police in relation to whether they were formally objecting to the proposal, and Inspector Millward commented that, whilst not formally objecting, the Police did not support the gating of this alley.

Decision

The Panel then retired to consider the application and evidence that had been presented. At 11.55am, the Panel reconvened to inform all present of their decision, and it was

RESOLVED: That the application for alley gating in Headington Close, Pinkneys Green, Maidenhead, be agreed, and that the alley be gated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and that the order be implemented with immediate effect.

MEETING

The meeting, which began at 10.30am, ended at 11.58am.