Agenda item

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources which advised Members of the receipt of a petition containing 13 signatures of residents of Somerville Road, Gathurst Court and Standish Court who objected to the proposed installation of alleygates to a pathway between 21 and 23 Montgomery Road, and recommended a proposed course of action.

 

The Board was advised at its meeting on 21st September 2010, the Board considered a report which outlined anti-social behaviour which was occurring to the rear of Montgomery Road, Widnes.  It was reported that an eleven-point action plan to address the anti social behaviour to the rear of Montgomery Road, which was detailed in the report, was in the process of being implemented and that its impact would be monitored and assessed.  The Board resolved that the plan be supported.  Furthermore, following discussion in relation to the establishment of an alleygate in the pathway leading from Montgomery Road, the Board resolved that a working group, including Members of the Board, be established to consider how to proceed with alleygating in the future.

 

The Board was further advised that the Council’s Community Safety Department had reported greater Police involvement in this area and the problems, which were being addressed by the action plan, had declined in frequency and intensity. The action plan had already resulted in crime statistics falling.

 

It was reported that during October 2010, an informal local consultation was carried out in the area by Halton Borough Council in order to gauge the views of residents in respect of an Alley Gating scheme being introduced at this location. Letters were delivered to approximately 250 houses on each side of the footpath / cycleway.  A total of 42 responses were received including 9 objections to the scheme and 33 in support. The attached petition was also received  and had been signed by 13 local residents opposing the gating scheme in this area.  The signatures on the petition included one original objector who responded to the consultation, bringing the numbers against the scheme to 21 (or 39%) and numbers in favour 33 (61%).

 

Those respondents opposed to the proposal, argue that the pathway should remain open, as it provides a valuable, convenient and safe route to school for the children of the area, avoiding the need to cross the very busy Dundalk Road at peak hours. 

 

It was also reported that five of those who responded in support of the scheme had made additional comments requesting the closure of another link onto the footpath / cycleway, from the Chillington / Netherfield estate, or expressed the hope that the proposed gating would resolve problems on the main route entirely.  It would appear from these responses that the consultation may have raised the expectation levels of some residents in these respects.  However, this gating proposal does not form part of a wider scheme.  The gating of all accesses to this part of the cycle network is something the Highway Authority would be opposed to as this could lead to a sustainable transport route that is no longer used for its intended purpose and could lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour due to a reduction in natural surveillance.

 

The Chairman reported that there had been an original petition of approximately 250 residents in support of the installation of the alleygates. The Board had made a decision previously to support the installation of the alleygates as over the last twelve months there had been a considerable amount of anti-social behaviour with numerous incidents being recorded by the police. Councillors had identified the alley to the greenway by these properties as a key access point for the people who were causing the anti-social behaviour.  In addition, it was noted that alleygates had been very successful throughout the Borough in reducing incidents of anti social behaviour.

 

The Board noted the numerous incidents of anti social behaviour in the area and that the pathway was not a designated safe route to school or a cycle path.  In addition, the Board agreed that installing an alleygate was in the best interest of the community.

 

After considerable discussion, the Board unanimously agreed to support the installation of an alleygate and that the recommendation be presented to the Executive Board for approval.

 

It was noted that the following public questions had been received:-

 

(1)                     If the gates dont go ahead this time what is it going to take to get them put up, after having death threats made to me, the police catching thieves in my garden and letting them go with a warning, youths throwing eggs at my windows, glass bottles getting thrown into the dog pen (cutting her paw and resulting in a £180 bill from the vets). please dont take the next few lines the wrong way, but I remember a man from Warrington called Garry Newlove who was plagued with yobs outside his house he is now six foot under, I have 3 fantastic kids and a fantastic wife and I HONESTLY DONT WANT TO END UP LIKE GARRY NEWLOVE especially over a poxy alleyway that could have something done about it to stop all this crap we are getting in a matter of weeks.

 

In response, the Board was advised that due to the complexity and late receipt of this question, a written response will be provided.

 

         (2)          I would like to address the meeting again on 14th June 2011 to reiterate my previous concerns and comments and would also like to ask if the Safer Halton Partnership are aware of the cost implications for sending a fire engine to deal with these incidents, sending the street scene team out to clean up the mess made (not just by the fire set but also for the fly tipping that goes on there) and the cost to replace the damaged fencing and replace the wheelie bin that was destroyed. I expect that if you add all those things together it will amount to a pretty penny, but the other cost that cannot be described in pounds, shillings and pence are the social cost's, the effect it is having on the health of the residents who live next to that pathway, the fact that they cannot settle because they are constantly worried about what is going to happen next, people should have a right to expect to be safe in their own home and live in peace, not live in fear.

 

In response, the Board was advised that Halton Housing Trust estimated the cost of repairs to a damaged fence at £100 following a bin fire reported last week.  Their records indicated that there had also been a bin fire in 2003.  Each wheelie-bin replacement cost the Council £20 per bin.

 

In respect of the amount of fly tipping that had been removed, more information on the specific area concerned was required.  Therefore a written response on this matter would be provided when further information has been ascertained. 

 

In respect of Safer Halton Partnership and the cost implications due to the complexity of the question a written response would be provided.

 

In addition, the Board noted the additional letters of support for the alleygates received from residents in the area.  A map of the area was also circulated at the meeting for Members information.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)                     The Board unanimously support the installation of an alleygate on the pathway between 21 and 23 Montgomery Road;

 

(2)                     the Board’S recommendation be presented to the Executive Board for approval; and

 

 (3)         the petitioners be informed of the Board’s decision.