To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Carwyn Cox. 

The Chairman asked everyone around the table to introduce themselves and explained that the meeting would be recorded and that the audio would be available on the RBWM website. 

To receive any declarations of interest

None received.

To consider the minutes of the Alleygating Panel held on 21 April 2015.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 21 April 2015 were approved.

To consider the above report

              ORDER OF BUSINESS

              The order of business was noted.

APPLICATION FOR A POTENTIAL ALCOHOL-RELATED ANTI-SOCAIL BEHAVIOUR PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDER (PSPO) ETON BROCAS AND FOOTPATH 51, ETON

Community Safety Officer

The Community Safety Manager, Brian Martin, informed Members that that there had been numerous complaints over the years about alcohol related anti-social behaviour on the Brocas.  It was noted that up until the passing of the ASB Crime and Policing Act (2014) it would not have been possible to confiscate alcohol from people behaving anti-socially because this was Eton College land and could not be subject to the old Designated Public Place Order.  Members were informed that the new legislation referred to “Public Space Protection Orders” and could be construed as land to which the public had access.

The Community Safety Manager explained that he had received sufficient complaints from residents and Police which had in turn triggered a consultation at the end of December.  It was noted that the consultation had involved Partner Agencies such as the Police, Eton College, Eton Town Council, Brocas Residents Group and the Eton Community Association, Councillors and the Local Access Forum).  It was noted that 32 Responses had been received of which 30 were in favour, 1 against and 1 which was neither in favour nor against the proposal. 

The Community Safety Manager went onto explain that Councillor Alexander had suggested that Meadow Lane Car Park be included in the PSPO order if agreed.

Members were informed that Eton College was neutral on the matter and whilst they were not objecting to the PSPO they would not be prepared to enforce it if granted.   

The Community Safety Manager stated that he did believe there to be a problem as Police statistics showed 21 incidents over the course of a year which was considered high in relative terms.

Members were informed that the borough already had more than 120 locations that were covered by the existing PSPO orders.

The Community Safety team strongly supported the recommendation to make all three new areas part of a new PSPO because the behaviour described fitted the criteria; however the decision lay with the Panel.

The legislation required the authority to consider whether the behaviour:

·         Had had, or was likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality; and whether its effect

·         Was, or was likely to be, persistent or continuing in nature;

·         Was, or was likely to be, unreasonable; and

·         Justified the restrictions imposed

Highways Officer

The Principal Rights of Way Officer, Anthony Hurst, stated that he did not have much to add other than there were a number of public rights of ways in the Brocas area and that he did not see any particular issues with the proposal.

Questions to the Officers

In response to questions:

The Community Safety Manager clarified that the 21 incidents on page 18 of the agenda related to the time period February 2015 – January 2016.

The Community Safety Manager  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider the above report

              ORDER OF BUSINESS

              The order of business was noted.

APPLICATION FOR A POTENTIAL GATING PUBLIC SPACE PROTECTION ORDER (PSPO) IN RESPECT OF ETON THAMESIDE / FOOTPATH 51, ETON

Community Safety Officer

The Community Safety Manager informed Members that gating was also covered under the PSPO legislation and as the Panel was aware from the minutes of the previous meeting the gating of FP51 had been considered previously.  At that stage the Panel had decided not to proceed and the Community Safety Manager pointed out that this was mainly due to insufficient evidence at that time coupled with concerns about overriding recent planning decisions.

The Community Safety Manager went onto explain that in the autumn of 2015 after a summer of incidents the Thameside residents had asked that gating should again be considered.  The results of the consultation were noted to be 37 in favour of the proposal of which 18 were not Thameside residents, 12 against, 2 neither for or against the proposal.  It was noted that the consultation had run concurrently with the Alcohol related Anti-Social Behaviour consultation.

The Community Safety Manager stated that he believed there was a problem as page 61 of the agenda showed a year’s crime data for Brocas Street immediately adjacent to the footpath 51.  Members were informed that the figures were higher than average for such a locale and for Anti-Social Behaviour showed distinct seasonality.  The Community safety Manager explained that the range of offences, not all of which will have occurred in footpath 51 was wide and Members should note gating was not just about Anti-Social Behaviour.

The Community Safety Manager advised the Panel that gating had a physical impact and would significantly alleviate the issues that had been occurring.

Members were advised that the Community Safety team supported gating with the following provisos:

·         That gating should be between fixed hours e.g. 19:00 and 07:00 for the convenience of residents.

·         Gates should be located at either side of the residents entrance rather than each end of footpath 51.

The Community Safety Manager explained that the above provisos would result in users having access during the day, and that if they wished all users would be able to access the river frontage 24/7.

Members were informed that if railings alongside the footpath were subsequently approved by Planning the Community Safety Manager believed that even greater protection would be provided to Thameside residents.  However it was noted that the railings alone would not stop issues happening in the covered area overnight and to the Community Safety Managers mind this was the area requiring the most protection as it was the key access point for Thameside residents.

The Community Safety Manager explained that whilst the Police response did not support the gating this was on the basis of a dip check whereas the statistics in the report covered a whole year.

The legislation required the authority to consider whether the behaviour:

·         Had had, or was likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.