Agenda item

The public open forum will commence at 2.00 p.m. and the following formal business of the Council will commence at 2.30 p.m. or whenever the public open forum ends, if earlier.

(2.00 p.m. – 2.28 p.m.)

 

Prior notice in accordance with Council Procedure rule 10.3 had been given of the following questions put by members of the public:-

 

Question: Nicholas Brown, 6 Beech Close, Colsterworth

 

In the Grantham Journal article of November 12th 2004, referring to the plan to house homeless people at Newton Court in Colsterworth, Councillor Martin-Mayhew referred to a letter from chief Superintendent Foley, where the Chief Superintendent stressed the need  for “appropriate measures” to be in place to tackle incidents of anti-social behaviour, to meet the concerns of the local community.

 

Can the Council tell us what they are and will they be provided by the Council or the Police?

 

Response: Councillor Peter Martin-Mayhew

 

A letter from Chief Superintendent Foley did request a robust process by which I understand anti-social behaviour can be dealt with very quickly because they are one of our partners in the Crime & Disorder partnership in any case.  The steps put into place by the Council cover a range of support not only for the residents but also for the people we shall move into there which is short term accommodation.  The elderly residents of Newton Court have numerous things in place and so do the residents we have to move in there on short term.

 

The pertinent steps here are regular visits by the estate officers to provide follow up support by officers in housing and close liaison with the local community officer. They are there to ensure that any criminal activity will be promptly responded to by the police.  There will be  close working between the district council’s anti-social behaviour officer and the police’s anti-social behaviour officer.  The estate management function and the police response will be delivered appropriately if it should be necessary.  I emphasise “should” as we are trying here to pre-empt something which hasn’t happened as yet.  We will also keep our allocation decisions constantly under review and move tenants to appropriate accommodation where a duty exists or to evict those where no further duty exists for the authority.  It will also involve the care centre so that its calls are received out of hours and officers from housing services are to make an appropriate response.

 

In the event that there are issues – and there have not been up to now – of anti-social behaviour, if the occupiers are on a 28 day licence this will be terminated immediately as no evidence with regard to the ASBO would be needed.  I hope that gives Mr Brown some idea of what we have done.

 

 

Supplementary question: Mr Brown

 

How do you go about implementing section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act within your housing policy and anti-social behaviour policy that you are debating on later today?  This is following on from a conversation I actually had yesterday with Chief Supt. Foley whereby he was very keen to get across to us that it is important that there is a strong policy on that.  The other question is that when referring to the details passed back to our parish council – following a conversation with parish Councillors, as of last week, it refers to various sub-sections and appendices as being the support measures in place, which are all withheld under confidentiality.  Both the parish council and the local residents would very much appreciate told 1) what the confidential arrangements are, and 2) the reason why they are being held as confidential?

 

Response: Councillor Martin-Mayhew

 

I know Chief Supt. Foley and Inspector Mendham quite well and in actual fact we work together quite closely because of the anti-social behaviour elements that exist – but not exactly on Newton Court.  We have the anti-social behaviour officers here who actually work as intermediaries with us.  If you have read that document, it tells you what their position is and what their aims are.  Going on to the information, I’m afraid that was exempt information if I remember correctly.  I would refer you to the officers on the bench for them to give a clear view of that.

 

Monitoring Officer:  I am aware of this and the reason it was exempt was because of matters concerning a specific tenant.

 

Director of Regulatory Services: I can confirm that those details referred to in Councillor Martin-Mayhew’s second response has now been made available to the parish council.  Your Chairman of the parish council does now have those appendices and they were made available earlier this week.

 

 

Question: Chris Townson, 33 High Street, Colsterworth

 

Re: The Anti-Social Behaviour Policy and Procedure before the Council for approval today; Page 4 Homelessness Act 2002 and page 5 Human Rights Act 1998.

 

Will Councillor Martin Mayhew confirm that the Council is using and will use its discretionary powers to ensure that homeless people with known anti-social behaviour records will not be housed at Newton court, whilst at the same time ensuring the Council’s responsibility for Human Rights is adhered to in relating to the old folks in the adjacent bungalows at Newton Court?

 

Response: Councillor Peter Martin-Mayhew

 

The Council will carry out its obligations as it should do to provide temporary accommodation for the homeless in accordance with the requirements of the homelessness legislation, whilst also complying with the Council’s anti-social behaviour policy.  These procedures are subject to the Council’s approval later today.

 

Supplementary question: Mr Townson

 

What I actually asked was whether a selection process was in place and I don’t believe I have had an answer to that.  I would refer back, as Councillor Martin-Mayhew said, to the Homelessness Act, but by your own document it also goes on to say that in addition states that the Council does not have to give preference to housing people guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make them unsuitable to be a tenant.  So therefore if you know that those people are likely to cause trouble, and you have that history, does that mean you will actually put a selection in place to make sure that those people are not housed next to vulnerable people at Newton Court?

 

I would also ask you to consider your own document again reference the Human Rights Act and whether  Housing Services would ensure it is doing all it can within its powers to enable quiet enjoyment by people of their homes and to ensure it is not breaching the Human Rights Act?  Therefore, if you do a selection/screening you will ensure that the Human Rights of those people at Newton Court is being protected.  That is why I ask whether a screening/selection process will be put in place.

 

Response: Councillor Martin-Mayhew

 

When you say selection and screening it sounds like we are talking about asylum seekers.  We are not allowed as a Council to take those elements into account.  We have to consider this on the basis of the need – we cannot delve into people’s lives and do such things.  But we are very careful and considerate as to whom we put where. We do not have to vet them – or treat them like animals. They are not animals, they are people and not all of them have offended either.

 

Question: Chris Townson, 33 High Street, Colsterworth

 

Why can’t the people of Colsterworth, or their representatives, the Parish Council, be told what support measures are in place for both the homeless tenants and the neighbouring elderly residents of Newton Court?

 

Response: Councillor Peter Martin-Mayhew

 

The support arrangements put in place for both the residents of the short term accommodation and the elderly residents have been approved by myself as the non key decision maker and to approve the use of the flats at Newton Court for short term accommodation.  It also has to be pointed out that this has been through the full Council where we have scrutinised it and come to the conclusion that I am doing the right thing in the sense of looking after our residents.  I can also confirm that details of these arrangements have been made available in writing to the Chairman of Colsterworth, Gunby and Stainby parish council.

 

Supplementary question: Mr Townson

 

My supplementary question to question 2, I believe Miss Marshall has answered that one.  As of yesterday, our Chairman of the parish council had not received that information.  On the assumption that he received that soon, at our next parish council meeting we will be discussing it and deciding what action to take from there.  I would just like to say that if there had been open dialogue from the beginning with Newton Court and that we felt satisfied that due consideration would be taken into account in placing suitable people next to the old folks, then I am sure all of this could have settled down.  We hope, judging by the first two occupants at Newton Court who appear to be ideal people – and the people of Colsterworth I am sure will be helping them where ever we can – we hope that this will be the end of the matter.

 

 

Question: G.L. Storey, 31 Belton Lane, Grantham

 

[Mr Storey began by prefacing his question with what he stated was an observation and background information on the context of his question.  He was advised by the Chief Executive that he must only refer to the question as written and submitted.]

 

Re: Deterioration of Wyndham Park

I believe that South Kesteven District Council has lost sight of what the memorial park is there for.  It is for the pleasure and leisure of all Grantham and inhabitants

 

Will SKDC take this situation to task and return Wyndham Park back to its former glory so that both SKDC, the Grantham public and visitors to town can have pride in their park?

 

Will the Council also consider the installation of CCTV in Wyndham Park as it is proven that installation does reduce anti-social behaviour?

 

Response: Councillor Mrs Frances Cartwright

 

Thank you for your question Mr Storey – I do understand it.  Pride is also a key word in the Council’s agenda.  People have a right to be concerned about deteriorating standards.  With the review of the Council’s priorities, it is intended to invigorate community pride and work with partners to address this issue.  In this respect, our anti-social behaviour officer is working with the police to address anti-social behaviour issues.  The police have arranged a series of directive patrols by police community support officers and increase passing attention by police officers.  In addition, the police and our ASB Officer intend to work on a project in the park with the Drug and Alcohol Action team early in the New Year.

 

Upon completion of this project, we will review the situation and see if there is sufficient evidence to warrant the provision of CCTV.

 

Supplementary question: Mr Storey

 

That was an answer to one – what about the condition of the park itself – the lack of flower beds, public amenities?  You haven’t answered that – you have just answered about the cameras.

 

Response: Councillor Mrs Cartwright

 

There are several issues here and I will attempt to answer some of them briefly now.  I will certainly write to you if you wish with a more detailed answer later.

 

Flower beds: with diminishing resources, it was recognised that we were spreading these resources far too thinly and with less beds we could maintain the standards of the existing ones in a better state.

 

Play equipment: Across the whole of SKDC there has been a rolling programme of upgrading to European standards. Wyndham Park equipment was refurbished two years ago.

 

The putting green was removed due to lack of demand and we do have a dog warden who can be directed to an area if you request.

 

Mr Storey: Thank you for your time.  Would you meet me at a later date, to save wasting any more Council time? There are a number of things we need to talk about on this subject.

 

Councillor Mrs Cartwright: Yes I will.

 

 

[The following two questions had been submitted to the Council electronically within the prescribed timescale, but due to an IT problem had not been  brought to officers’ attention prior to the meeting.  Councillor Mrs Neal, to whom the questions were put, had not therefore had time to consider a response.   The Chairman, on the advice of the Chief Executive, agreed to allow these questions to be put.]

 

Question:  Anita Marquina, 10 George Street, Grantham

 

In light of the increasing levels of traffic within the centre of Grantham, does the Council have a view on how we can develop arrangements to ensure that town centre residents can live on streets that are clean, safe and include parking facilities that allow easy access to our homes?

 

Response:  Councillor Mrs Neal

 

Thank you for your question.  As the Chief Executive mentioned, I was only made aware of this question immediately before the commencement of this meeting.  So with that short notice, I would prefer on this occasion to provide a full written response at an early date.

 

Anita Marquina:  Yes, that would be acceptable. I could send a supplementary question to your e-mail address if that is OK.

 

Question:  Anita Marquina

 

Will the Council recognise and work with the Grantham Town Centre Residents’ Group in developing an innovative and cost-effective residential parking scheme that meets the needs of residents and the taxpayer within Grantham?

 

Response: Councillor Mrs Neal

 

Similarly, I have only just become aware of this but residents’ parking schemes are currently not within the remit of this Council.  I will address the issues raised within the correspondence that follows this meeting.

 

Supplementary question:  Anita Marquina

 

At our last meeting we were aware that the district council should instigate the wish for a residents’ parking scheme before the county council would approve one and put one in place.  Several of the Councillors were at the meeting.  We feel it starts at district council level and would like to know your agreement upon this.

 

Response: Councillor Mrs Neal

 

I will address that supplementary too.