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 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 commented that in his experience many walkers did enjoy early morning and late evening walks and putting a gate across this path would remove this enjoyment.

 

The Chairman clarified that the application would still have to go through a planning application if it was approved by the Panel.

 

Questions to the Officers

 

In response to questions:

 

The Community Safety Manager explained that the crime statistics were within a 50 yard vicinity of Footpath 51.

 

The Community Safety Manager stated that he believed the crime statistics would improve if a PSPO was put in place.

 

Representations by key agencies

 

The Community Safety Manager read out the Thames Valley Police comments which were as follows:

 

“From a physical review of 45 incidents I found evidence in 17 separate incidents of alcohol related ASB and behaviour detrimental to the local community’s qualify of life within the proposed PSPO areas/areas immediately adjoining the proposed PSPO. I am therefore satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to support the introduction of an alcohol related PSPO in Eton Brocas and Footpath 51.

Data does not, however, demonstrate ASB/crime of a persistent or continuing nature on the footpath leading under the archway of the premises (Eton Thameside) that would justify the proposed closure of that section of Footpath 51 and therefore I cannot support the proposed PSPO Gating Order. 

 

I appreciate that the gating would not permanently prohibit access (but be time specific) to Footpath 51and that there is an alternative route to footpath 51 nearby.  I was able to find, however, only 1 incident (URN 1209 11/04/15) where unreasonable behaviour was reported on the specific stretch of footpath affected and do not believe that there is evidence to support the proposition that individuals are using the route under the archway of the premise to cause ASB/that those causing ASB on Footpath 51 are necessarily travelling along this stretch of pathway.

 

There is little or no evidence on TVP systems of ASB on that particular stretch of footpath.  Complaints almost exclusively relate to persons on the benches situated on the footpath and callers have not referred to problems on the stretch of footpath where the gating order is sought.”

 

The Community Safety Manager explained that of the 49 incidents once fire & theft incidents had been removed a much smaller number of incidents remained that could have been associated with the public house opposite rather than the area in question. 

 

Representations by local residents in favour of a potential gating public space protection order (PSPO)

 

Mr Paul Edwards spoke on behalf of residents of Eton Thameside and explained that the anti-social behaviour trial that he had been involved in had meant sacrificing weekends in order to assist the Eton community as a whole. 

 

It was noted that a number of residents has donated enough money to fund this trail – the results of which were included in the agenda.  Mr Paul Edwards explained that Eton College, local companies and the Eton community had employed an independent security company 20:00 – 04:00 on Friday and Saturday evenings to collect anti-social behaviour data whilst patrolling.  It was noted that it had become clear that footpath 51 had the highest number of footpath incidents which were not all alcohol related.  Mr Paul Edwards stated that the previous Panel had wanted further evidence before granting the application; data which he felt had now been provided. 

 

Mr Paul Edwards explained that in no way did residents wish to deny residents or visitors access to the Brocas or river front and that the application did not request permanent closure of the footpath, but specific timed closure overnight.  

 

Members were informed that footpath 51 was the only entrance and exit to the development (including disabled access) and that the design was less than ideal.  It was noted that the application in front of the Panel today would be subject to a planning application if approved. 

 

Questions to residents in favour of a potential gating public space protection order (PSPO)

 

Mr Paul Edwards confirmed that page 52 of the agenda explained the 24/7 public access proposal via footpath 51. 

 

Mr Paul Edwards stated that residents had been keeping a record of incidents over the past year which the Community Safety Manager had a record of. 

 

Representations by local residents against a potential gating public space protection order (PSPO)

 

Peter Thorne informed the Panel that he was the Chairman of the Local Access Forum who had considered the proposal and decided that whilst they would be against gating the whole area the LAF did not consider it to be unreasonable to partially gate footpath 51.  It was noted that the LAF did not want to dissuade the public from using footpath 51 and therefore suggested that an electronic system be used to manage the section of the footpath between the hours of 19:00 – 07:00.  Peter Thorne went onto explain that the LAF were concerned about the cost to the public purse and were also concerned that developers had been permitted to create such a dark area in the first place. 

 

Helen Price added that she believed if the area was gated it would simply move the problem elsewhere and that if granted this would be setting a precedent.  Helen Price stated that she believed the public needed access to as many facilities as possible but if granted that the Panel thought about the ramblers and path users that might use the area late at night.  It was suggested that 22:00 until earlier than suggested would be preferable. 

 

Questions to local residents against a potential gating public space protection order (PSPO)

 

None.

 

Summary

 

The Chairman invited all present to summarise their case.

 

The Community Safety Manager re-iterated 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. It was suggested that the Panel consider where, if granted, gates could be located.

The Principal Rights of Way Officer re-iterated that many people enjoyed walking late at night and / or early in the morning. 

 

Mr Paul Edwards explained that he believed any expense would be at the local resident’s expense rather than the public expense.  It was noted that Mr Paul Edwards did not believe people would defecate, urinate and ‘shoot up’ at the front of the riverbank and would more likely chose a darker area to use. 

 

Decision

 

The Panel then retired to consider the application and evidence that had been presented.

 

During the Panel meeting, Members considered oral evidence submitted by the Community Safety Officer and the Highways Officer of the Royal Borough, a written statement from the Thames Valley Police (read out by the Community Safety Officer) and oral evidence from local residents. In addition, the Panel considered written evidence in the form of a report prepared by the Community Safety Officer, the summary of consultation responses, examples of the type of behaviours affecting the residents of Eton, a PSPO consultation response summary, an interested groups representation, a response from the Eton Community Association and Crime & ASB statistics for the area in the vicinity of FP51 (February 2015 - January 2016). All written evidence had been circulated to Panel Members in advance of the hearing.

 

The Panel noted that the Royal Borough is empowered under s.59 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to make PSPOs where activities carried on in a public place:

·         Have had, or are likely to have, a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality;

·         Are, or are likely to be, persistent or continuing in nature;

·         Are, or are likely to be, unreasonable; and

·         Justify the restrictions imposed.

·         The likely effect of making the order on occupiers of premises adjoining the footpath, the likely effect on other persons in the locality and the availability of a reasonably convenient alternative route.

 

The Panel considered the trial data by an independent security company and was of he opinion that, having regard to the evidence provided in support of a gating PSPO, it was possible to justify the proposed gating between points A-B on the attached map in accordance with the mean of operation (throughout the proposed closed & locked alley-gate time period, all Eton Thameside residents will have 24hr unrestricted access to their properties. Residents will enter via a discreet key pad with a four digit PIN code or entry fob. Exit will be facilitated via a fail safe visible green exit button. All residents will be given a small training package to familiarise themselves with the new system of entry and exit before going operationally live.  Pinnacle Property Management will be responsible for the maintenance programme and are available 24hrs / 365 days a year. An emergency contact number will be clear and visible.  In the event a member of the public is walking along FP51 just prior to agreed lockable times - the alley-gates should lock; there will be a clear and visible exit button to allow easy public exit.  Emergency services and Eton Town Council will be furnished with the entry pin code).

 

In making their decision, the Panel had regard to the following:

 

·         Map of FP51.

·         Summary of Resident Consultation Responses.

·         Interested Groups Consultation submissions.

·         Crime and ASB Statistics for the area in the vicinity of FP51 (February 2015 – January 2016).

·         The Royal Borough’s Policy for the Installation of Alley Gates.

 

The Panel also observed that it would be necessary to secure the removal of the gate at point C.

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: To proceed with a gating PSPO for Eton Thameside/FP51 between points A-B on the map (see attached map), to close the gates between the fixed hours of 22:00 – 05:00; that the gates be operated in accordance with the Means of Operation set out on Page 52 of the Report; that at all other times the gates shall remain open; that the PSPO to be reviewed in 12 months.  The Panel noted that, although it was not in this Panels remit, they required the gate at point C on the map to be removed (see attached map).