Meeting documents

Alley Gating Panel
Tuesday 22 March 2011 5.00 pm




Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Document Title: Minutes of the Planning & Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel – 22 March 2011
Author: Liz Hornby
Creation Date: March 11
ALLEY GATING PANEL

22 MARCH 2011

PRESENT: Councillors Rayner (Chairman), Adams, Mrs Herdson, Hilton and Stretton

Officers: Wendi Batteson, Stephen Brown, Katie Hamill, Liz Hornby, Jenni Howells, Anthony Hurst and Brian Martin.

Also Present: Inspector Mark Millward (Thames Valley Police)

Local Residents addressing the meeting: Shabir Amin, Margaret Bowdery, Margaret Crowe, Brian Fisher, Lorna Jacobs, Gerald Price, Michael Sinclair and Kath Winlo.

PART I

01/10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillor Mrs Howes.

02/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Mrs Herdson declared a Personal interest as she was an inactive member of the Ramblers Association.

Councillor Rayner declared a Personal interest due to being a farmer in the Windsor and Maidenhead area although did not own any housing estates.

03/10 MINUTES
    RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings of the Panel held on 5 November 2007 be approved.

04/10 ALLEY GATING – 17 & 19 CULLEY WAY AND 8 & 10 FARMERS CLOSE

Highways Officer

Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, reported that the alley had been gated since June 2009 and that the status of the alley in question was indeterminate as it had not shown up on the map as a Right of Way. If there was evidence of long term use then the Council had no option but to consider. The necessary process had been undertaken and a conclusion reached that it should be considered a public right of way and that an ALLEY GATING PANEL – 22.03.2011
Order had been issued. However, a number of residents had expressed concern in relation to anti social behaviour (ASB), but the Panel noted that, in law, this could not be taken into consideration when making their decision, neither could security issues. They noted that the alley was sufficient to make a Modification Order, and dependent on the Panel’s decision, then timescales could be matched in relation to necessary papers.

Community Safety Officers

Mr Martin, the Community Safety Manager, introduced the application for Members to consider. Section 2 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 introduced a new power that allowed councils to make, vary or revoke gating orders in respect of highways within their area. New section 129A and 129G in the Highways Act 1980 enabled councils to restrict public access to any public highway by gating it. The Panel noted that the alleyway was already gated at one end. The Panel noted that there were 34 individuals from Farmers Close and Culley Way who supported gating and 35 individuals who were opposed to gating the alley. A challenge whether the alley gating procedure had been followed correctly had been received. This was because some residents had not understood that a formal consultation period would be undertaken if the current meeting agreed to a draft gating order. . Members noted the photographs of the alleyway that were provided. They noted that there was also another alley connecting Farmers Close and Culley Way.


Representations From Police

Inspector Millward reported that the alley in question was deemed more a service access than an alleyway which was originally gated in 2009 following some incidents around drinking and noise. To date some crime had been recorded in the area but not anti-social behaviour as such. Inspector Millward stated that there had been 135 crimes reported in alleyways which included assaults, sexual assaults, arson and robbery. The alley in question was unlit and fenced and would attract anti social behaviour of drinking, urination etc. There was no line of sight in the alleyway which had the potential for people walking through to be ‘jumped on’ and the Police had a responsibility to residents.

Inspector Millward concluded that it was his opinion that if left open, the alleyway could attract graffiti, noise, drinking, urination etc., and stated that it was not down to the police to clean up the mess that could be left by anti-social behaviour. He stated that the police would wish to have this location removed as a public access.

Questions to the Community Safety, Highways Officers and Police Representative

Councillor Adams asked how many crimes had been committed in the alleyway over the past two years. Inspector Millward stated that since the gating there had been no reported incidents and that before the gating there was no data available as the matrix had been brought in within the last six months. Councillor Hilton raised the issue of anti-social behaviour incidents which were set out in the grid in Appendix 2 of the report and how many of those incidents noted were related to the alleyway. Inspector Millward stated that there was no recorded ASB data since the matrix had been introduced in September 2010.

Wendi Batteson, Legal Officer commented that there was strict Home Office guidance to comply to and that the Royal Borough’s own policy was very similar to those rules so that by following the Borough’s own policy the panel would be adhering to the Home Office guidance.

Councillor Hilton noted that there were two alternative means of access. Councillor Rayner stated that he had walked all the alleys in the vicinity and noted that the alley in question was extremely narrow and would not enable people to pass each other.

Representations By Local Residents and Interested Parties

Mr Gerald Price, a local resident, commented that he simply wished a peaceful existence. In the last 10 years he had noted that the problems were getting worse and that he had brought it to the attention of the Parish Council who stated that it was not in their remit of responsibility. Mr Price commented that he had seen school children congregating at lunchtimes who were smoking, illegally in his opinion as they appeared under age. Mr Price stated that he had found used condoms, empty drinks cans and cigarette ends littering the alley. Mr Price believed that the alley was too narrow, and that should an elderly person use it and have a fall, it would be very difficult for the emergency services to access the patient. He also stated that since the alley was gated there had not been the problems on the scale he had seen prior to gating.

Kath Winlo, a local resident, commented that her house did not back onto the alleyway but she and her family had used alley over the past 30 years without any issue. She had not noticed any rubbish in the alley. Mrs Winlo commented that she was aware of an elderly Culley Way resident who was now had to drive to her doctor’s surgery when before could simply walk through the alley in question. Mrs Winlo believed that the report in relation to public way status was very one-sided and commented that in relation to the 10 reports of ASB, one was a case of trespass and one was a noisy party.

Mr Brian Fisher, a local resident, stated that there were eight properties adjacent to the alleyway who have all experienced problems. Mr Fisher stated that he maintained the alleyway by picking up litter. He stated that he had experienced banging on his fence panels, broken glass and rubbish being thrown into his garden. He also stated that urinating, foul language and graffiti were commonplace. Mr Fisher explained that the alley was an escape route for criminals and had found an abandoned briefcase some years ago which had been stolen.

Mrs Lorna Jacobs, a local resident, explained that she lived near to the alleyway. Mrs Jacobs stated that she had submitted evidence that the alley was a public right of way. Mrs Jacobs urged the Panel to follow their own Policy which incorporated legal guidance. Crime and disorder was not a consideration the Panel should take into account although it was regrettable and that the decision should be based on evidence. She stated that since December 2010 there had been no reported Anti-Social Behaviour and therefore it was clear that the criteria had not been met in relation to the Policy and that the application should be rejected.

Mr Sinclair, a local resident stated that the broken windows and fences were not ‘virtual’ broken windows and fences.

Mrs Crowe, a local resident stated that she lived at 27 Culley Way where her family had lived adjacent to the passage and Farmers Close for the past 35 years. None of the problems being claimed by residents of Farmers Close had ever previously been mentioned to anyone that she was aware of in either road until recently, when one person took it upon themselves to install two gates at either end of the passage. One was instantly removed by the owners of the house adjacent to the passage into Culley Way.

Now, according to the Maidenhead Advertiser, the passage had become a ‘Crime Hotspot’. The only crime Mrs Crowe could swear to was illegally shutting off the passage in the first place without any consultation with the people that the closure of the passage would affect. There were children in Culley Way who were now denied the pleasure of skipping through the passage on their way to school – much nicer and healthier than braving the cars and fumes of Farmers Way. There were also some over-65s who took advantage of nipping through the passage to the library, Wessex Way and Woodlands Park shops and the doctor’s surgery in Cannon Lane. Mrs Crowe expressed sorrow that such a small matter had been blown out of all proportion by one thoughtless and self-righteous person’s action, and trusted that the Panel could turn the application down.

Mr Shabir Amin, a local resident stated that he had erected the gates as he wished crimes against his property and family to cease. He stated that after he had erected the gates for a second time, he had consulted with Mr Jacobs and had offered him keys to the gates. Mr Amin stated that Anti-Social Behaviour had been directed at his family with racist abuse, fences kicked in and drinks thrown into their garden. Windows had also been broken. He stated that the alleyway had two right angles where it was easy to people to hide. He stated that a house in Farmers Way had been burgled about a year ago and the burglars had accessed the property through the alley. Mr Amin stated that it was Council Policy to gate bad alleyways.

Mrs Margaret Bowdery, a representative from the Ramblers Association, but not a local resident, stated that her home backed onto alleyways where she had experienced no problems. She stated that she had inspected the alleyway in question. It was a basic right for people to access public footpaths and that it was regrettable when individuals stopped access. Mrs Bowdery believed that procedures had not been followed and that the Local Access forum had not been handed the papers until very late.

Questions To Local Residents/Interested Parties

Councillor Hilton asked Mr Price whether he had reported any Anti-Social Behaviour and Mr Price stated that he had always called although did not receive Crime Numbers from the Police upon calling. Mr Amin confirmed however, that he had been given Crime Numbers from the Police when he had reported any incidents. Councillor Stretton asked Mr Amin how long the gates had been locked and Mr Amin confirmed they had been locked for 18 months and that some residents had keys.

Mr Churchill from 15 Culley Way stated that there had been a residents meeting, but that only those people who were in favour of the gating were invited. Mr Churchill stated that he did not want the area to be classed as a criminal area.

The Chairman asked Anthony Hurst what had prompted the issue of alley gating and Mr Hurst replied that it was due to having received a query on whether the alley was a public right of way from Mr & Mrs Jacobs.

Summary From Community Safety and Highways Officers

Mr Martin, the Community Safety Manager, summarised by saying that all the arguments had been heard by the Panel and that there were three options open to them for a decision.: agree a draft gating order, not to approve a gating order, or to postpone a decision pending more information.

In making its decision the panel needed to consider –

- whether crime and disorder is expressly facilitated by the alley;

- whether it would be reasonable to support the gating of the alley in view of the Council’s duty under s.130 of the Highways Act 1980 to protect public rights of access;

- whether and where there are alternative means of access, especially for those with mobility or other disabilities.

- whether the gating of the alley will discourage healthier lifestyles, by reducing opportunities for travel by foot or cycle and encourage travel by car.

Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, had no further comment.

Decision
    The Panel then retired to consider the application and evidence that had been presented. At 7.00pm, the Panel reconvened to inform all present of their decision, and it was –

    RESOLVED: The Council publishes Notice of a Draft Alley Gating Order for the alleyway between 17/19 Culley Way and 8/10 Farmers Close to be gated 24 hours a day 7 day a week. If no substantive objections are received during the statutory consultation period, the Council proceeds with installation of the gates and make keys available to residences in Culley Way and Farmers Close. If any substantive objections were received during the statutory consultation period the Alley Gating Panel would re-convene to consider these objections.

    05/10 MEETING

    The meeting, which began at 5.00pm ended at 7.04pm.