Present at the meeting:
- Councillor Mrs M J Whiteside (Chairman)
- Councillor S Dawber
- Councillor J Eccles Churton
- Councillor J N Grundy
- Councillor J Ellis
- Councillor B Bowen
- Councillor J Moodie
- Councillor H L Cadman
- Councillor Mrs J Prescott
- Councillor Mrs E Smethurst
- Counillor K Anderson – Cabinet Neighbourhood Champion
Officers in attendance
- Gary Finch – Principal Officer – Overview and Scrutiny
- Alison Henderson – Solicitor
- Diane Adshead – Committee Services Officer
- Peter Hassett – Principal Solicitor
Officers presenting reports
- Neil Fearnley – Service Director - Neighbourhoods
- Joyce Swift – Projects Manager
- Paul Whitemoss – Service Manager
- Superintendant Robert Lomas – the Greater Manchester Police
5 Apologies for absence: Councillors Mrs A M L Bland, R M Bleakley, R Brierley, B J Fagan and Mrs A Turnock.
6 Alley Gating programme: The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Environmental Services, presented by Neil Fearnley, Service Director, Neighbourhoods, which informed Members about proposed changes to the referral mechanisms in implementing Alley Gates.
Members gave comments and asked a number of questions which included the following salient points:-
- Were there any specific criteria or order of priority for alley gating?
- Could Members have a before and after alley gating figure for anti-social behaviour complaints?
- Do officers check the impact that alley gating has on other areas of the community?
- Who is responsible for the future upkeep and maintenance of alley gates?
- Are there problems with refuse collections in alley gated areas?
Members were advised that Ashton and Leigh South would be the next areas in the Borough to receive alley gates and that this would be implemented in January and February 2010. The priority list was currently being refreshed and was being re-ranked following a crime and disorder reduction initiative, area assessment and PACT process.
Anti social behaviour complaints recorded before and after alley gating were currently being refreshed, however, last year’s data showed a 90% reduction in anti social behaviour following the introduction of alley gates.
Alley gating was not the only preventative measure used in dealing with anti social behaviour issues and the approach taken by officers was flexible; some areas required fencing rather than gating. A site survey and evaluation was carried out prior to alley gating to determine benefits or displacement of crime.
Any alley gates or fencing erected by the Council would be considered Council assets and would be maintained by the Council in the future. Private and residential alley gating would be the responsibility of the residents. Alley gating in housing renewal areas would be considered to be Council assets and therefore the future maintenance of these would be the Council’s responsibility.
The refuse collectors had a key to all the alley gates in the Borough and to date, had only completely failed on seven occasions to collect waste. Residents had not reported any ongoing problems, however, any collection issues could be dealt with by calling the Environmental Services helpline.
Resolved: The Committee notes the report and requests from the Executive Director:
(1) a list of priority areas and order of alley gating be available for Members; and (2) that procedure for collecting waste in alley gated streets be incorporated into the guide.
7 Crime Statistics Overview: The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Environmental Services, presented by the Service Director - Neighbourhoods, which provided Members with a performance overview of key reported crimes and further information on changes in recording criteria for Serious Violent Crime.
Members gave comments and asked a number of questions which included the following salient points:-
- What effect had the re-classification of serious violent crime made to figures?
- Have other areas in Greater Manchester seen an increase in serious violent crime?
- Was domestic violence included in the serious violent crime re-classification?
- Were crime statistics available at Ward level?
- Do statistics reflect crimes which involve hospitals?
- Is a Police response time’s list available?
Members were advised that the re-classification of serious violent crime caused an increase in figures primarily because it now included grievous bodily harm without intent and this accounted for 70% of serious violent crime. Many areas in Greater Manchester had also experienced similar increases.
A draft Domestic Violence Strategy would be available in September 2009. The statistics on death caused by domestic violence was a separate figure from the violence statistics and remained relatively low in the Borough.
Crime statistics were currently measured at Township level but could be made available at Ward level. The crime hotspots identified were Wigan and Leigh town centres. The statistics currently did not include any crimes which resulted in hospital treatment, other than shotgun related crimes. This information had been requested but data protection issues had to be overcome. The Greater Manchester Police work to nationally defined response times.
Resolved: The Committee notes the report and requests from Executive Director:
(1) that a draft copy of the Domestic Violence Strategy be brought to the committee;
(2) that a copy of the crime statistics currently at Township level be reported to Committee;
(3) a copy of the local Policing Pledge; and
(4) that quarterly crime figures be reported to this Committee.
8 Violent Crime – Partnership Approach: The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, presented by the Service Director – Neighbourhoods, which provided Members with an update of partnership progress on producing a new strategic action plan to tackle violent crime in the Borough.
Members gave comments and asked a number of questions which included the following salient points:-
- Were domestic violence perpetrators offered advice and help if their violence was identified as the direct result of alcohol or drug abuse?
- Was the action plan for violent crime reliant on funding?
- Did the steering group identify links between violence and race?
The Council were currently piloting a ‘drug torch’ scheme in the town centre to determine the scale of drug misuse; if successful, this technology could also be used at the scene of a domestic violence incident.
Several partnerships were currently involved in the violent crime strategic action plan but there was still a need for greater involvement from National Health Service. Partners needed to meet and identify priorities and establish where the funding would come from.
An equality impact assessment was carried out when assessing violent crime strategy. Hate crime was included in the violent crime statistics at a national level. There was no clear data reflecting the scale or nature of race crime in the Borough at present.
Resolved: The Committee notes the report and requests from the Executive Director:
(1) a key explaining acronyms be given to the Committee; and
(2) a draft report on third sector involvement and partnership working be brought to the Committee
(Councillor Mrs E Smethurst declared a personal and non-prejudicial in this item as she is a Trustee of Drop In And Share (DIAS)
9 2009-2012 Environmental Services Draft Performance Plan: The Committee considered a report, of the Executive Director of Environmental Services, which advised Members of the Environmental Services departmental priorities for the period 2009 - 2012.
Members gave comments and asked a number of questions which included the following salient points:-
- Could race hate incidents be added to the key performance indicators?
- Could the report be more specific in highlighting issues relevant to the terms of reference of this Committee?
- Could the report identify a link between the performance and the indicator?
Members raised the possibility of and race hate incidents being considered for future key performance indicator measures.
Resolved: The Committee notes the report and requests from the Executive Director:
(1) performance updates throughout the year; and
(2) that reports highlight the issues relevant to this Committee.
10 Abandoned Vehicle (Private) Policy and Procedure: The Committee considered a report, of the Executive Director of Environmental Services, which sought Members approval for the adoption of the Council’s Abandoned Vehicle (Private) Policy and Procedures.
Members gave comments and asked a number of questions which included the following salient points:-
- Who was responsible for the removal of vehicles abandoned on un-adopted streets?
- Could Members be given an alternative route for reporting abandoned vehicles other than the GM enquiry number?
- How much does it cost to remove a vehicle?
The report would deal with issues such as vehicles abandoned on private land. Members were advised that they should contact the Environmental Services Department directly to report abandoned vehicles.
Resolved: The Committee:
(1) thanks the Executive Director for the report;
(2) endorse the adoption of the policy; and
(3) requests a breakdown of costs for removal of vehicles.
11 New Scrutiny arrangements and consequential amendments to the call in procedure: The Principal Solicitor, Peter Hassett, presented a report, on the amendments to the call in procedure following the establishment of the five new Scrutiny Committees. The report set out who was eligible to call in a decision and the process that a call in could follow.
Members asked a number of questions, which included the following salient points:-
- Would an Elected Member receive an automatic invite to attend a Scrutiny Committee to consider a call in that he/she had supported?
- Who would decide on whether a call in request was competent?
- What would happen if a call in covered the terms of reference of more than one Scrutiny Committee?
Members were advised that any Elected Member who supported a call in would be invited to attend the appropriate Scrutiny Committee which would consider the call in. Members were also advised that the Chief Executive would determine the competence of any call in request. Finally, Members were informed that if a call in transcended more than one Scrutiny Committee, either the Co-ordinating Committee would consider the call in or a joint meeting of the two Scrutiny Committees would be arranged.
Resolved: The Committee notes the report and:-
(1) thanks the Principal Solicitor; and
(2) welcomes the changes to the call in procedure.
12 Feedback from the Portfolio Holder: Councillor K Anderson gave the Committee feedback from Cabinet. The Cabinet thanked the Committee for their suggestions on the Anti Social Behaviour Policy and acknowledged the work plan that had been developed.
Chairman
Meeting concluded at 4:00 p.m.
