AGENDA ITEM 7
EAST (INNER) AREA COMMITTEE
7TH DECEMBER 2005
PRESENT: Councillor Taylor in the Chair Councillors Akhtar, Brett, M Davey, Harington, Hollingsworth, G Hyde, Pryke and Selby
CO-OPTEES: Derek Barker, Killingbeck and Seacroft Forum Mr A Armstrong, Gipton Community Forum Mr D Foster, Harehills Community Forum Mr P McArdle, Richmond Hill Community Forum
51 Chair’s Opening Remarks
The Chair welcomed David Foster, Co-opted Member for Harehills Community Forum and Pearle McArdle for Richmond Hill Community Forum to their first meeting as official co- optees on the Area Committee.
52 Declarations of Interest
No declarations of interest were reported at the meeting.
53 Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence from the meeting were submitted on behalf of Mrs M Carroll and Mrs S Fisher, both of the Burmantofts Community Forum.
54 Open Forum
The agenda made reference to the provision contained in the Area Committee Procedure Rules for an Open Forum session at each ordinary meeting of an Area Committee, for members of the public to ask questions or to make representations on matters within the terms of reference of the Area Committee. On this occasion, no matters were raised under this item by those members of the public who were in attendance.
55 Minutes – 12th October 2005
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 12th October 2005 be confirmed as a correct record.
56 Street Lighting PFI
The Area Committee considered a report by the Director of City Services summarising the progress to date on the street lighting PFI initiative, involving the replacement of the existing orange light source with a better quality light
Draft Minutes for approval at the meeting held on 8th February 2006 source and generation of £1m per year for the 25-year life of third party income
Helen Finister, Chief Streetscene Officer presented the report and responded to Members’ questions and comments. Members discussed the following issues arising from the report:
¾ Members asked if there were to be a consultation process with each Area Committee wedge on a phased basis; ¾ Should street column advertising go ahead, what control will there be on the nature of the adverts; ¾ The Pilot Scheme at Temple Drive had been viewed by one Member of the Area Committee who was very impressed but there was concern that advertisement should never be placed on columns on busy main roads; ¾ What effects the new lighting may have on CCTV, traffic calming and whether this had been taken into consideration; ¾ The Area Committee inquired whether, like in Birmingham, political posters would be allowed during the Elections times on those columns allocated for advertisements; ¾ Members were concerned that the new lighting system may be so bright that it may shine into bedrooms during the night and requested more information should provided to the Area Committee on the type of proposed lighting.
RESOLVED - (a) That the progress on the lighting solution and the third party income proposals as outlined in the report be noted. (b) That a further report be submitted to a future meeting of this Area Committee on the type of lighting proposed for the East Inner area.
57 Pilot Co-ordinated Environmental Enforcement Project
Referring to Minute 47, 12th October 2005 the East Area Manager submitted a further report on proposals for funding from the Cleaner Streets, Greener Places Well Being Budget stream, of a full time secondment from City Services to undertake targeted environmental enforcement work in three of the most deprived SOAs in Inner East, one from each Council ward in the area.
Stephen Boyle, East Area Manager attended the meeting and responded to Members’ queries and comments. In summary, the main issues discussed were:-
¾ The types of enforcement and whether this included untidy gardens or gardens where rubbish had been dumped in the back yard etc; ¾ Members were concerned that there had as yet been no prosecutions on residents with untidy gardens.
RESOLVED – To approve an allocation of £13,699 from the Well Being Cleaner Streets, Greener Spaces workstream to fund a secondment from City
Draft Minutes for approval at the meeting held on 8th February 2006 Services from January until March 2006 to deliver the proposed Co-ordinated Environmental Enforcement Project.
58 Making Leeds Better
Making Leeds Better Programme submitted a detailed report on the vision for Making Leeds Better which is a strategic programme aimed at improving health and wellbeing of the people who use health and social services in Leeds by providing them with speedy access to high quality care and treatment that is responsive to their needs and provided in the best possible settings.
Jill Copeland and Liam Hughes, Leeds East PCT presented the report and responded to Members’ questions and comments. In summary, the main points discussed were:-
¾ The prioritisation for parking especially on the site being considered on the Shakespeares; ¾ Patient transportation when considering new developments, such as the proposed Children’s Hospital; ¾ The processes in place to maintain and improve the quality of existing surgery, hospital buildings and whether proper planning procedures had been established when considering any new developments; ¾ The implications of a greater number of patients being treated in the community as opposed to being treated in hospitals; ¾ Members asked that proper deadlines be given to any proposed consultation period next year.
RESOLVED - (a) That this Area Committee notes the progress made in developing the Making Leeds Better programme for health and social care services in Leeds. (b) That the Community Forums, Area Committee and District Partnerships are the appropriate local engagement mechanisms and opportunities for Making Leeds Better in preparation for the formal consultation period next year. (c ) That all East Inner Area Committee Members, through East Area Management, be regularly informed about each phase taking place.
59 Delegated Function: Six Month Youth Service Performance/Monitoring and Update Report
Referring to Minute 69, 22nd February 2005 the Director of Learning & Leisure submitted a further report on general developments within the Leeds Youth Service, in particular the impact of the Youth Matters green paper. The report also informs the Area Committee about current Youth Service programmes of work, achievements and proposed developments in the Inner East area to ward level which includes a half year report on “Reach“ targets as agreed through the Area Committee to monitor as part of its delegated function/ responsibilities.
Draft Minutes for approval at the meeting held on 8th February 2006 The report also suggested ways in which the Area Committee can be meaningfully engaged in influencing and approving Youth Service planning and delivery of youth work in order to meet their delegated executive functions and responsibilities.
Pat Brooke, Youth Service, Learning and Leisure presented the report and together with Pat Toner, Education Leeds responded to Members’ questions and comments. In summary the main points discussed were:-
¾ Members questioned the facts and statistics within the submitted report, especially the REACH figures and those figures obtained by the GIS census; ¾ The Area Committee asked to be reminded of the resources obtained from this Area Committee for Youth Workers in the East Inner Leeds area and the allocation of hours; ¾ Members expressed their concern at the problems with anti-social behaviour in the East Inner area, especially with those youths under the age of 13 and as young as 7 being involved with drugs and stealing cars; ¾ The need to review legislation in order that the Youth Service and other agencies are able to work with younger children; ¾ What training is in place for Youth Workers especially for those working in areas with a large number of children with ASBOs; ¾ The Area Committee requested a viewing of the recently aired documentary on the pressures of working with people in the Richmond Hill area and the pressures of having ASBOs placed upon them;
RESOLVED - (a) That the report be noted. (b) That this Area Committee feels that there should be a change in policy to allow the Youth Service and other agencies to work with children under the age of 13 and that this Area Committee requests the Council to lobby Central Government to change this policy.
60 Public Reassurance – Neighbourhood Warden Structure in Inner East Leeds
Referring to Minute 44, 12th October 2005 the Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing submitted a further report in response to their request for separate discussions about how the various elements of public reassurance, for which they have delegated responsibility, could be deployed across the Inner East area with a clear rationale and an accountable structure.
The report presented proposals for the future development of Neighbourhood Wardens across the area and the use of Wellbeing funds to ensure an effective, base resource is provided in each ward.
John Woolmer and Gillian Mayfield, East Leeds Area Management presented the report and responded to Members’ questions and comments.
RESOLVED – (a) That the report be noted;
Draft Minutes for approval at the meeting held on 8th February 2006 (b) To establish a Neighbourhood Wardens structure for Inner East Leeds as described in section 3 of the report, which allows for a base team of four Wardens, plus one Senior Warden per ward; (c ) That subject to the conditions set out at paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 of the report, the release of Well-being funds up to the value of £96,940 per annum to allow an additional 3.5 Wardens to be recruited and to pay for the enhancement of one post to Senior Warden; (d) That recruitment of the additional posts will be subject to maximising opportunities that may be provided through restructuring and redeployment exercises.
61 Area Well-Being Budget Update – Capital and Revenue
Referring to Minute 90, 12th April 2005 when the Area Committee approved principles by which the Capital element of the Wellbeing budget was to be split by ward and how decisions were to be made on how each allocation was to be spent.
The Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing submitted a further report providing information on those Capital Schemes which have been agreed in principle as outlined in paragraph 1.3 of the submitted report.
RESOLVED – (a) To note and confirm approval for the following three capital schemes:-
(i) Minor resurfacing works at Nowell Mount at a cost of £2,000 be approved. (ii) Improvements to street nameplates in the Burmantofts and RichmondHill Ward at a cost of £4,100 be approved. (iii) Lunans’ Community Safety Scheme – that approval be given to fund £40,000 towards the cost security measures for this scheme.
(b) To note the small grants approved so far this year, as listed at appendix D of the report.
62 Dates, Times and Venues of Future Meetings
Wednesday, 8th February 2006 (St Agnes Church Hall, Burmantofts) Wednesday, 29th March 2006 (Harehills Primary School).
*Subsequently amended to the Area Management Team Office, Unit 1, Acorn Business Park, Killingbeck Drive, Leeds 14 .
Draft Minutes for approval at the meeting held on 8th February 2006 Item: ADDITIONAL INFO.
Originator: Helen Finister Tel: 2474249
Report of the Director of City Services
East Inner Area Committee
Date: 9th February 2006
Subject: Street Lighting Advertising
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Ethnic minorities
Women
Disabled people
Narrowing the Gap
Council Delegated Executive 9 Delegated Executive Function Function available Function not available for for Call In Call In Details set out in the report
Executive Summary
During the October and December 2005 Area Committee cycle, Members received a report on the Street lighting PFI and the proposals to generate third party income through street lighting advertising. A number of issues were raised and this report is intended to address the points.
1.0 Purpose Of This Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to respond to issues raised by Area Committees on the Street lighting PFI and Street Lighting Advertising Trial.
2.0 Background Information
2.1 Negotiations are currently ongoing with the Council’s preferred bidder to replace 80,000 street lights across Leeds over the next five years, which is due to start at the end of June 2006. This work will be carried out under a Private Finance Initiative agreement (PFI) which means that the Council pays back the cost of the scheme to the private company involved over a 25-year period.
2.2 Part of the Council's plans to replace old, worn out street lights involves generating income to reduce the cost to council-tax payers by advertising on the street lights themselves. Advertising on street lights across Leeds could generate as much as £1 million per year equivalent to a 0.5% saving on annual Council Tax.
2.3 In October this year, the council agreed to run a pilot scheme to see how effective street light advertising is and gauge the views of Leeds' residents. The pilot also involves finding out if local businesses are interested in advertising on street lights and if the signs will have any effect on issues like road safety, planning and future developments.
2.4 The city-wide pilot is proposed to involve 70 different sites across Leeds in 10 wards where it is deemed that advertising would be viable.
3.0 Main Issues
3.1 Street lighting PFI
Consultation with Area Committees on Roll-out Programme
It is proposed to consult with Area Committees on the proposed plan for the implementation of the Street lighting PFI and how this will affect each ward. The preferred bidder is currently developing these proposals which it is anticipated will be available for discussion in April 2006.
Erection of Hanging Baskets/Christmas Lightings, etc.
Where hanging baskets are currently attached the new columns will be strong enough to continue to hold (2) hanging baskets. The new column design for other columns will be strong enough to hold "floral displays" (wrap around attachments) as opposed to hanging baskets. Similarly with festive lights the arrangements in the contract will reflect current arrangements.
Connection of New Lighting Columns
One of the major risks is that the jointers (who connect the lights to the supply) will not keep pace with the column installation work. To mitigate against this risk the preferred bidder is already in discussion with YEDL. The preferred bidder will do all the trench excavation and reinstatement work. But the actual connection of the lighting to the supply is non-contestable work, which means that it can only be carried out by YEDL. To promote closer working, the YEDL jointers will share an office with the preferred bidder and will work exclusively on the Leeds contract. Since the preferred bidder will only be paid when the replacement lighting is fully working, this incentivises them to ensure that this relationship works well. YEDL are fully aware of the size of the task and have adequate time to resource up to meet the demands of the Leeds PFI. A similar arrangement between the Wakefield PFI and YEDL appears to be working smoothly.
Output Specification and Payment Mechanism
The output specification has been built upon guidance provided in standard documentation from the 4P’s, HM Treasury and documentation developed by other local authorities in the Street Lighting sector
The payment mechanism is based on the payment of the Unitary Charge for the delivery by the Contractor of the City Council’s Output Specification for the Project. The objectives in developing the Payment Mechanism have been to:
• incentivise the Contractor to deliver to required service standards, timetables and objectives:
• be bankable, whilst at the same time only requiring the City Council to pay for the level of performance actually delivered and
• reflect sound commercial principles that the performance should be objective, clear, simple, cost effective and capable of measurement.
There are a number of performance standards which fall into the following categories:
• Design, renewal or refurbishment of apparatus • Planned Maintenance, inspection and testing • Operational response • Customer interface and contract management • Best Value • Working practices; and • Monitoring and reporting
The preferred bidder will be largely self monitoring and will submit monthly reports on performance against all the standards. The client team retained by the Council will have full access to the asset monitoring system where all fault identification and repairs are entered and will be able verify the information as both a desk top exercise and through spot checks on site.
Heritage Lighting
There are a number of conservation areas across the city which currently has lighting in keeping with the area. Where these exist and the lighting is maintained by the Highways Services this will be replaced, if necessary, by the PFI provider with conservation style lighting columns. There is, however, an assumed level of enhanced apparatus within the contract (approx 5,000 columns) - if replacement of heritage columns falls below this then there is potential for the balance to be used to provide additional heritage lighting.
Gas lighting
There are approximately 30 sites across the city where gas lighting columns exists. Some of these are housed in historic columns which are listed structures. However, the majority are serviced by gas mains which do not meet current regulations and bringing them up to standard will incur significant costs as new gas supplies will need to be fitted where possible.
Currently work is ongoing with the Council’s Conservation Officer to agree the refurbishment of a small number of locations which will then be included in the PFI for ongoing maintenance.
3.2 Street Lighting Advertising
The Street lighting advertising trial was established to determine the following issues.
• Public reaction to the advertising, and any adverse health and safety issues • Views of local communities and members to the merits of the project • Views of local businesses as to the value of the advertising • Likely impact on the Supplementary Planning Document • Potential scope of the project
The trial is not due to be completed until December 2006 and therefore work is still ongoing on many of the issues raised by Elected Members.
Public Consultation
An article was placed in the ‘About Leeds’ newspaper which is circulated to all households within the city requesting views on the proposals for street lighting advertising. The citizen’s panel is also being used to obtain public views. Additionally, the local media have published a number of articles calling for views.
Detailed analysis of these responses is currently being carried out.
Planning Process
Requests were made to have prior knowledge of the proposed sites which would be submitted for planning permission. It proposed that Elected Members receive written notification prior to any planning application being submitted for planning approval.
Veto on Adverts
The type of advertisements placed is regulated by the Advertising Standards Council. For the purpose of the trial the contractor has been given criteria, in line with draft guidance which states that certain types of locations are generally unsuitable for advertising. These include primarily residential roads, “green” radial routes into the city and green corridors, open countryside, green belt and rural villages.
More detailed work will take place as the trial develops on the type of advertising acceptable in Leeds. Business Sector Consultation
Consultation is currently been carried out with businesses in the city to gauge their views on the proposals for street lighting advertising.
Supplementary Planning Guidance
The Guidance document is currently being drafted with a view to consultation on the contents in the Spring 2006.
4.0 Implications For Council Policy And Governance
4.1 Street lighting advertising is currently being trialed to inform a report to Executive Board in January 2007 where a decision will be made on future Council Policy on this issue.
5.0 Legal And Resource Implications
5.1 Negotiations are still taking place with the preferred bidder and therefore certain information cannot be disclosed without compromising these negotiations.
6.0 Recommendations
6.1 Members of the Area Committee are requested to note the content of this report Agenda Item: 8
Originator: Anna Turner
Tel: 0113-2143234
Report of the Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing
East (Inner) Area Committee
Date: 8th February 2006
Subject: East Leeds Community Radio – monitoring report
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Ethnic minorities x All Inner East Wards Women x
Disabled people x
Narrowing the Gap x
Council Delegated Executive Delegated Executive x Function Function available Function not available for for Call In Call In Details set out in the report
Executive Summary
1. This report summarises the activities of East Leeds Community Radio (ELFM) leading to
and including its week of live broadcasting in November / December 2006. It provides the
Area Committee with statistical information on the level of involvement achieved and
themes explored.
1.0 Purpose Of This Report
1.1 This report aim to provide the East (Inner) Area Committee with the information on and evaluation of the achievements of ELFM in 2006. The written report will be backed up by a presentation by some of the participants in the project.
2.0 Background Information
2.1 East Leeds Community Radio (ELFM) were commissioned by the East (Inner) Area Committee to Promote Citizenship and Local Democracy, broadcast Crime & Safety messages, Develop Skills for participants and Foster Community Engagement in East Leeds via the use of a Community Radio project. Heads Together, a voluntary sector arts organization, runs the project and the support given was £14,400 agreed in September 2005.
3.0 Main Issues
3.1 This report is to update members on activities of the group. The project involved 20 skill workshops, offering training opportunities to 113 local people. There were 12 meetings organized with local people to plan the training and broadcasting activities.
3.2 The training involved workshops in interviewing techniques, editing, research, confidence building, team work, local democracy, citizenship, presentation skills, dj skills, audio and studio training plus creative writing skills.
3.3 The community radio station was set up at Alston Lane community centre and broadcast on 107.2fm radio. The broadcast was on air from Saturday 26th November to Friday 2nd December 2005, broadcasting from 12noon to 8pm every day.
3.4 This was the 3rd community radio broadcast in East Leeds, and the focus of this broadcast was the activities and opportunities achieved by children and families in the area as well as the EASAL plans.
3.5 There was a core of 30 volunteers who have been involved in each of the broadcasts, but the broadcast had 277 people come into the studio in total. There were 52 different programmes and each broadcast received an average of 5 phone calls and texts per show. There were 60 volunteers involved in some way throughout this broadcast, and 22 of these were new volunteers.
3.6 A particular focus of the project was facilitating community engagement with a view to publicizing the consultative forums and the Area Committee meetings. One programme focused on the structure of and the need as well as reason for committee meetings during a half hour special slot with a phone interview and a studio discussion. The show was attended by a member of the Area Management team. The local democratic structure was also discussed on a number of other shows, particularly ones aimed at a young audience.
3.7 Each day, the broadcast featured an hour long show dedicated to the EASAL plans; with Councillors, Council officers, residents and community groups invited to discuss the future of the area. This show was hosted by three local architects with an interest in the locality. There were features on many local groups throughout the broadcast, showcasing the good work they do in the area, as well as spotlight features on individuals who are making a difference in their community. 3.8 The project performed to the original budget. Given the number and scope of people and groups involved in the project, this represents very good value for money for this particular project.
3.9 The group have been approached by East Park Community Association to host the next broadcast at their premises. This broadcast is planned for June/July 2006.
4.0 Implications For Council Policy And Governance
4.1 Radio has been shown to be an effective way of engaging communities in discussions and sharing information.
5.0 Recommendations
5.1 That the Area Committee note the content of this report. Agenda Item: 9
Originator: Stephen Boyle Tel: 0113 - 2149004
Report of the Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing
East (Inner) Area Committee
Date: 8th February 2006
Subject: Safer Stronger Communities Fund: Neighbourhood Element
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Ethnic minorities Killingbeck and Seacroft Burmantofts and Richmond Hill Women
Disabled people
Narrowing the Gap
Council Delegated Executive Delegated Executive x Function Function available Function not available for for Call In Call In Details set out in the report
Executive Summary:
This report went to the District Partnership on 27th January 2006. It deals with consultation on the development of the intensive neighbourhood management and details the main issues involved.
1.0 Background
A consultation paper on the use of Safer Stronger Communities Fund: Neighbourhood Element was circulated to partners in mid January. The paper proposed developing intensive neighbourhood management schemes in three clusters of the worst 3% SOAs in the District. The attached maps depict the proposed project boundaries. There will be a further opportunity to adjust them in line with future requirements.
2.0 Main Issues
2.1 Partner Feedback:
• Consideration must be given to voluntary sector agencies as potential deliverers of new activity/services and therefore some form of appropriate partnership commissioning/tendering/bidding process will be needed to deal with this • Proposals should be built on existing tasking arrangements particularly given their alignment with Neighbourhood Policing teams. This will also help to avoid overstretching police research resources in the area. The Cluster boundaries do not directly correspond to tasking areas and this needs to be reconciled • There may be a role for a neighbourhood liaison officer to act as the public face of the agencies • We must ensure that SSCF:NE resources are used for true additionality • INM should be targeted to the locations of early EASEL developments to reduce crime and improve the image and marketability of localities • Community involvement is a key area. The work must go beyond token representation and we need techniques that go much deeper into communities, reaching a larger and much more diverse section of the population. • Consideration should be given to addressing truancy and school liaison, garden maintenance, CCTV, employment pathways work
2.2 Next Steps
We need to confirm the areas of intervention, our priorities for action and associated performance targets and our proposed programme of activities with Government Office before the end of February. The Board is asked to support the following proposals to move the planning process to completion:
A. The three clusters for the East District, proposed in the consultation paper are agreed as the target areas
B. There is a joint cluster led by North East District which is supported by part of the East Leeds SSCFNE allocation covering Chapletown and the area between Spencer Place and Harehills Road.
C. The following lead roles are agreed for the three target clusters:
Inner City Cluster Re’new Mixed Communities Cluster Area Management Halton Moor/Osmondthorpe LSEH
D. The leads are tasked with producing detailed implementation plans for their cluster by February 10, based upon the recommendations in the consultation paper and the earlier INM Report to the Narrowing the Gap Executive and taking into account the feedback from partners recorded above.
E. The allocation of SSCFNE resources will be based on the content of each cluster plan, taking into account available complementary resources and the differences in scale of the three clusters. The Area Manager will bring a further report to the next meeting of the Board proposing the budget for the SSCFNE allocation in East Leeds.
F. The core outcomes for each cluster will be the Safer Stronger Communities Outcomes contained in Leeds Local Agreement as follows:
Safer and stronger communities
To improve the quality of life for people in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and ensure service providers are more responsive to neighbourhood needs and improve their delivery
To reduce the level of alcohol and drug abuse and to reduce the violence and anti- social behaviour related to the misuse of alcohol and drugs
G. Additional local outcomes will be based on those outlined in the consultation paper.
3.0 Recommendations
It is recommended that the Area Committee note this report.
furmntofts282ihmond2rill2roposl
vegend roposed2ere yriginl2vye
yh gih2f2ri2eiq2iewD2xisqrfy ryyh2exh2ry sxq2hiD2viih2gs2gy xgsv his2mp2is2sed2upon2the2yrdnne2urvey9s2higitl2ht2with2the2permission2of2the2yrdnne2urvey2on2ehlf2of2the2gontroller2of2rer2wjesty9s2ttionry2yffie ©2 nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2gopyright2nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedings ©2grown2gopyrightF2ell2rights2reservedF2veeds2gity2gounil2yFF2viene2xoF2IHHHIWSTU2@PHHTA ip2X2PHHT2X2wtt2X2syhQ72X2HHP x ghpeltown2G2heprds2vne2evised
yh gih2f2ri2eiq2iewD2xisqrfy ryyh2exh2ry sxq2hiD2viih2gs2gy xgsv his2mp2is2sed2upon2the2yrdnne2urvey9s2higitl2ht2with2the2permission2of2the2yrdnne2urvey2on2ehlf2of2the2gontroller2of2rer2wjesty9s2ttionry2yffie ©2 nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2gopyright2nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedings ©2grown2gopyrightF2ell2rights2reservedF2veeds2gity2gounil2yFF2viene2xoF2IHHHIWSTU2@PHHTA ip2X2PHHT2X2wtt2X2syhQ72X2HHU x qipton282outh2eroft
yh gih2f2ri2eiq2iewD2xisqrfy ryyh2exh2ry sxq2hiD2viih2gs2gy xgsv his2mp2is2sed2upon2the2yrdnne2urvey9s2higitl2ht2with2the2permission2of2the2yrdnne2urvey2on2ehlf2of2the2gontroller2of2rer2wjesty9s2ttionry2yffie ©2 nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2gopyright2nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedings ©2grown2gopyrightF2ell2rights2reservedF2veeds2gity2gounil2yFF2viene2xoF2IHHHIWSTU2@PHHTA ip2X2PHHT2X2wt2X2syhQ72X2HHV x ysmondthorpe2ere vower2vevel2uper2yutput2eres in2wost2heprived2Q72xtionlly
sndustril2G xon2opulted
yh gih2f2ri2eiq2iewD2xisqrfy ryyh2exh2ry sxq2hiD2viih2gs2gy xgsv his2mp2is2sed2upon2the2yrdnne2urvey9s2higitl2ht2with2the2permission2of2the2yrdnne urvey2on2ehlf2of2the2gontroller2of2rer2wjesty9s2ttionry2yffie2©2 nuthorised2reprodution infringes2grown2gopyright2nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedings ©2grown2gopyrightF2ell2rights2reservedF2veeds2gity2gounil2yFF2viene2xoF2IHHHIWSTU2@PHHTA ip2X2PHHT2X2wtt2X2syhQ72X2HHW x Super Output Areas (SOAs) in the most deprived 3% of SOAs in the country
Education, Index of Health Barriers to Supplementary Supplementary Income Employment Skills and The Living Super Multiple Leeds Deprivation Housing & Crime Index - Income Index - Income Ward SOA includes A.M.A. * Deprivation Deprivation Training Environment Output Area Deprivation Rank & Disability Services Domain Affecting Affecting Older Domain Domain Deprivation Domain Rank Domain Domain Children People Domain E01011372 City & Hunslet 36 1 Stratford Street, Beverleys Inner South 301 623 659 256 14344 446 15 921 464 E01011361 Chapel Allerton 52 2 Granges, Hamiltons, Francis Street Inner North East 3 31 454 3869 17008 691 677 12 259 E01011663 Killingbeck & Seacroft 78 3 Tarnside Drive, Foundry Mill Street, South Parkway Inner East 237 1022 831 4 19260 416 321 448 1250 E01011357 Chapel Allerton 83 4 Scott Hall Road, Sholebrokes Inner North East 118 187 704 3443 12611 649 169 701 188 E01011429 Gipton & Harehills 116 5 Spencer Place, Bankside St, Shepherds Lane Inner East 105 530 933 1606 12677 911 115 594 34 E01011375 City & Hunslet 162 6 Wickham St. Seftons, Harlechs Inner South 199 408 1290 870 14628 3395 71 924 755 E01011675 Burmantofts & Richmond Hill 185 7 Lincoln Green Inner East 910 98 357 1715 14754 622 1517 3935 3509 E01011312 City & Hunslet 209 8 Trentham St, Oakleys, Garnets Inner South 523 723 946 928 15747 1639 5 2853 538 E01011662 Killingbeck & Seacroft 227 9 Foundry Mill Terr, Brooklands Inner East 620 1129 2119 59 10481 1032 423 573 7264 E01011360 Chapel Allerton 253 10 Reginalds, Mexboroughs Inner North East 271 823 1170 2258 16540 407 566 1576 247 E01011431 Gipton & Harehills 263 11 Foundrys, Thorn Drive, North Farm Road, Amberton Approach Inner East 876 1234 994 460 17049 772 89 1651 1675 E01011426 Gipton & Harehills 268 12 Gathorne Terr, Hares Ave, Pasture Road, Baldovan Mt Inner East 345 822 1482 861 13536 3496 129 3260 136 E01011338 Burmantofts & Richmond Hill 270 13 Haslewoods, Rigtons Inner East 895 458 564 875 11363 1385 1928 2793 592 E01011667 Killingbeck & Seacroft 275 14 Foundry Mill Drive, Hawkshead Cres, Alston Lane Inner East 348 2366 1939 25 15891 941 282 682 527 E01011624 Temple Newsam 292 15 Halton Moor, Kendal Drive, Cartmell Drive Inner East 704 698 1858 33 5001 1984 5325 2235 1067 E01011626 Burmantofts & Richmond Hill 339 16 Cross Green Lane, Easy Road, Dial St, Dent St Inner East 1178 844 937 220 13168 558 3184 2063 2224 E01011492 Middleton Park 343 17 Throstle Lane, Intake Sq, Acres, Middleton Park Grove Inner South 483 1538 1526 78 14768 910 2473 707 1668 E01011339 Gipton & Harehills 409 18 Oaktrees, Beech Mount, Oakwood Lane Inner East 1759 1200 1812 314 14515 270 491 1082 4058 E01011337 Bramley & Stanningley 417 19 Fairfields Inner West 595 1424 2177 258 15716 590 2167 1284 365 E01011473 Middleton Park 451 20 Winroses, Whitebeams Inner South 643 1250 1186 110 12901 1493 6565 1299 1394 E01011368 Beeston & Holbeck 470 21 Crosby St, Recreations, Bartons Inner South 1394 970 2203 609 17184 1819 7 2744 1960 E01011364 City & Hunslet 478 22 Malvern Road, St Lukes, Lady Pit Lane Inner South 1249 1008 1072 97 16731 1257 3863 723 3500 E01011622 Temple Newsam 494 23 Neville Road, Wykebecks Outer East 832 1227 1792 166 9324 1398 5035 1671 1057 E01011342 Gipton & Harehills 585 24 Brander Road, South Farms, Coldcotes Inner East 1209 1902 2498 222 14652 19 3683 2792 1789 E01011371 City & Hunslet 601 25 Bismarcks, Dewsbury Road, Burton St Inner South 1363 1293 2194 920 13589 510 1101 2212 1006 E01011658 Killingbeck & Seacroft 734 26 Boggart Hill Inner East 1803 1874 3286 640 7887 1899 142 2875 2688 E01011373 City & Hunslet 762 27 Barton Road, Coupland St, Sunbeam Place Inner South 2268 1510 1331 801 15332 245 2523 3425 3195 E01011348 Burmantofts & Richmond Hill 813 28 Torres Inner East 1028 2783 4068 425 12508 1897 398 1537 2767 E01011679 Hyde Park & Woodhouse 816 29 Little London, Lovell Park Inner North West 1821 297 1791 9881 10859 799 1323 4599 1841 E01011427 Gipton & Harehills 820 30 Easterly Grove, St Wilfrids Inner East 1314 3209 4163 829 16313 393 68 3291 1018 E01011346 Gipton & Harehills 823 31 Wykebeck Valley Road, Branders, Gipton Approach Inner East 1790 2117 3078 438 10708 54 3862 1577 3646 Agenda Item: 10 (A) Originators: Anna Turner/ John Woolmer Tel: 0113-2143234
Report of the: DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOODS AND HOUSING
Meeting: EAST (INNER) AREA COMMITTEE
Date: 8TH FEBRUARY 2006
Subject: WELLBEING BUDGET (REVENUE) 2005/06 – OUTTURN REPORT
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Ethnic minorities All East (Inner) Wards Women
Disabled people
Narrowing the Gap x
Council Delegated Executive x Delegated Executive Function Function Function available not available for Call In Details for Call In set out in the report
Executive Summary This is the 2005-06 Wellbeing Budget Outturn report relating to the first full financial year of activity by the Inner East Area Committee. The report presents a summary of spend to date and existing commitments on projects/work in progress; together with a number of final projects for approval. The predicted outturn position is for the £127,060 carry forward from 2004/05 and the £274,000 allocation for 2005/06 to be fully spent by the year-end.
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 The Council’s allocation to the Inner East Wellbeing Budget (Revenue) for 2005/06 was £274,005. This was confirmed to Area Committee in September 2005.
1.2 However, also in September 2005 the Area Committee received confirmation that it was to receive £127,056 in relation to the carry over from 2004/05. This relates to projects which were approved and committed in 2004/05 but which did not take place before the end of the financial year. These included for instance, but not exclusively, summer activities for children, some community events and payment for CCTV maintenance.
1.3 The total Wellbeing Revenue funding therefore available to the Area Committee for 2005/06 (but not formally confirmed until September 2005) is £401,061.
1.4 At its meeting in September 2005, the Area Committee agreed to allocate funding to the main work streams of Community Engagement, Community Safety, Neighborhood Management (Tasking Teams), Small Grants, Cleaner Streets, Greener Spaces and Young People. These workstreams followed the priority issues identified in the Inner East Area Delivery Plan (ADP) and accompanying local “Making It Real” sections.
1.5 The Area Committee agreed nominal allocation of funding against each workstream together with the principal that the benefits are shared equally between the three Inner East wards. The Area Committee agreed that, providing these conditions were met and relevant ward Members/Forums were consulted as necessary, it was happy for projects/work to be commissioned between meetings and reports to be provided back to Area Committee to enable it to monitor spend and ensure accountability.
1.6 However, as funding was not confirmed until relatively late in the financial year there does remain Wellbeing funds to commit/spend. There is no guarantee that the Council will allow a consecutive carry forward of funding to 2006/07.
1.7 Therefore a number of projects have been worked up which will both address the priorities of the Area Committee identified in its ADP, and, ensure that the budget is fully spent by the year-end.
1.8 As most of these projects cut across work-streams and therefore the final figure for each work-stream may potentially vary from the nominal allocations previously agreed – the proposals are brought to Area Committee to confirm approval.
2.0 PREDICTED OUTTURN POSITION
2.1 Appendix A summarises the current predicted outturn position for 2005/06. The expenditure is broken down into the agreed priority work streams of the Area Committee and is further split as follows:
• The first column details what has actually been spent to date (i.e. bills paid) • The second column details committed expenditure (i.e. where work has been agreed and orders raised but bills not yet presented/paid) • the final column shows projects currently under development to deliver this year, for which the money is earmarked pending Area Committees approval (see section 3.0).
2.2 The predicated outturn position is for the Area Committee to have fully spent both its carry forward from 2004/05 and the allocation for 2005/06 – i.e. a total of £401,061.
2.3 This represents a major achievement in the Area Committee’s first full financial year; particularly as it only received formal notification of its allocation half way through the financial year.
3.0 FINAL PROJECT/WORK-STREAM APPROVALS FOR 2005/06
3.1 Appendix 1A includes a number of project proposals which have been worked up to deliver actions against the agreed workstreams of the Area Committee. Importantly, these projects can deliver within the 2005/06 financial year. They are shown in the “earmarked” column and are summarised in appendix 2A for the Area Committee to consider and confirm approval. Members will notice that there is a small over programming identified. This is in case of any unpredictable, beyond our control slippage by any of the projects.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 The Area Committee is asked to:
4.2 Note the achievement of a predicted outturn position which forecasts the Inner East Wellbeing (Revenue) budget to be fully spent by the year-end (subject to approval of 4.3).
4.3 Confirm approval for the projects/work outlined in section 3.
APPENDIX 2A: PROJECTS AWAITING CONFIRMATION OF APPROVAL TO PROCEED
o Intensive Consultation Project in Support of EASEL Phase 1- £15,000 This series of activities is going to include a collaboration with Hi8us project, who have already worked with us on engaging young people and producing films describing their lives and life in East Leeds. This time, young people will be involved in consultation with all sections of the community, recording on film their feelings, ideas and needs impacting on regeneration. Another exercise will be “Planning for Real”. A number of events with local residents will culminate in a report which will be used in the production of the next stage of Local Area Agreement (LAA) “Alternative Options Stage” and again, impact on the EASEL process in its first stage. o Race Hate Project - £6,000 Hot spot area in Seacroft, Gipton, Harheills and East End Park are going to be targeted and in particular those currently wanted or suspected of offending, for arrest, prosecution and police attrition activity. Repeat victims will be supported with additional police attention, provision of resources. The project has been developed through Killingbeck multi-agency ASB panel. Additionally, a ‘Day of Action’ aimed at hate crime (along the lines of Operation Behave) to clear up any outstanding arrests for hate crime is being planned. Officers engaged on the day of action will also conduct bail checks as appropriate, welfare visits etc. This additional work will involve high visibility policing by 4 PCSO’s working extended hours (4hrs) on Thurs, Fri, Sat & Sun evenings over a 4 week period (up to midnight). o Schools Gardening Project - £1,000 This project is a partnership with Leeds East Homes to organize a gardening competition for schools in the area. The funding is a contribution towards organizational costs and prizes. o Community Fun-Days - £10,200 Following the successful community events held in 2005, the proposal is to continue the financial support to the organisation of a number of annual community events across the wards during the summer of 2006. These include the Gipton Gala, Seacroft Green Gala and Burmantofts Community Event. By securing the funding at this early stage, the Area Committee helps ensure planning and involvement of these events by the community is done so with certainty/confidence and with resource to pay for any early items of expense. The work helps deliver local action contributing to the Area Committee’s workstream priority of Community Engagement and Young People. o The Bridge Centre (Seacroft and Manston Family of Schools) - £25,000 To contribute towards start-up costs of this collaborative project run by the Multi- Agency Support Team (MAST) arm of the Seacroft and Manston Family of Schools. The project will be sustained through funding from Education Leeds, the Family and (subject to approval) Neighborhood Renewal Funds. The centre will provide provision for up to 10 children referred from local primary schools as exhibiting challenging behaviour. The ethos of the provision will be based on the five outcomes for children detailed in the Every Child Matters agenda. The provision will include access to family support and parenting programmes where appropriate. Approval of funding will be conditional on confirmation of secured on-going revenue funds and agreement to work alongside Learning Partnerships to ensure a coordinated approach. The work helps deliver local action contributing to the Area Committee’s workstream priority of Young People. o Inner East Leeds Young Persons Bus - £30,000 Replacement of one of the existing minibuses used by the service. The service is run by Youth Services and provides a minibus facility for any organised activities with young people in Inner East Leeds to access. The bus is used throughout the three wards by youth workers and schools in particular. The service is self –financing in terms of running costs – but does not have the resources to pay for re-newing its fleet. The funding will pay for a fully kitted new minibus and for the first year of mainaintence. A complementary/match bid has been made to the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund for the replacement of a further bus. The work helps deliver local action contributing to the Area Committee’s workstream priorities of Community Engagement, Community Safety and Young People. o Gipton Community Sports Field - £20,000 As part of the rebuild of Oakwood Primary School (a PPFI project), a new community sports field was created. The field is within the boundaries of the school and is the school’s responsibility to manage. However, the facility is available to any organised group from the community to access for free through the school. Unfortunately, the school has found that, as access to the fields is not restricted/secure, it is being used for dog-walking and other unauthorised activities which are resulting in the field being unsafe to play on due to dog-foul, broken glass and occasional needles. The solution is to complete the boundary fencing and gating of the school so that access is properly controlled and managed by the school. The total cost has been estimated at £30k. Included in this cost is the maintenance and replacement of damaged fencing by the PFI contractor, Mowlems, for a 25 year period. The School will find the remaining £10k. A number of community groups have already enquired about using the field. The work helps deliver local action contributing to the Area Committee’s workstream priorities of Cleaner/Greener, Community Facility improvements, Community Safety and Young People. o Neighbourhood Management – additional £30,000 The Area Committee is asked to note and approve a virement of £10,000 per ward into the Tasking budget in order to ensure that the full amount of the Wellbeing Budget is spent in this financial year. The Tasking activity gives us the greatest flexibility to react to the local needs of communities and can be applied to any issue of importance identified by local Members, the local forum and relevant inter-agency tasking team. At present, the ideas include:
• Killingbeck and Seacroft – a pool of security equipment to benefit repeat victims of crime; domestic violence, race, burglary, etc • Burmantofts – environmental measures in Richmond Hill (green areas around the multistory blocks) • Richmond Hill – small security measures/gates to combat anti-social behaviour • Harehills – extension to existing alleygating scheme • Gipton – open space improvements
o “More Than a Number”, a Community Arts Project - £14,800 This project contributes towards the improvement of environment through art. The request is for extra money towards £29,759 already secured from the Arts Council England to fund additional 20 days of work with the communities in Harehills to design, produce and install street nameplates and other decorative pieces; e.g. house numbers and decorations. The area covered will be between Harehills Lane, Harehills Road and Compton Road. The visual impact will be considerable with 30 large new street name plaques, 30-40 decorative pieces alongside existing street signs and house numbers potentially, for all participants. So far there have been 60 school children involved, 20 Sure Start parents and children and 125 participants from various youth groups. Street based events are also planned, thus encouraging community engagement and community spirit. Inner East Wellbeing Budget 2005 / 06 - Outturn Report 2005 / 06
Theme Project Actual spend Committed Earmarked Community Engagement Budget 2005 / 06 274,005.00 Appendix 1A 56,385.05 Burmantofts Funday 14 April 2005 1,592.15 C/f 2004/05 127,056.00 Costs for Killingbeck & Seacroft Community Participation Day 21-5-05 3,500.00 Total budget 401,061.00 Costs for Gipton Gala 9-7-05 1,000.00 Costs for Celebrating Harehills 11-6-05 1,000.00 Actual spend 180,936.31 Volunteer Reading Help and Reading Matters (phase 1&2) 4,228.00 Committed 63,361.55 2500 Living advent calendar posters for South Seacroft 300.00 Earmarked 170,997.90 East Leeds FM Community Radio (2005/06) - contribution 14,400.00 Meeting costs (Forums / Area Committee etc) 364.90 Balance -14,234.76 Community fundays 10,200.00 Intensive Consultation Project (EASEL - Phase 1) 15,000.00 Community Cohesion Project 4,800.00 Total 26,385.05 4,800.00 25,200.00
Community Safety 47,731.00 EEP / Torres: Leedswatch - CCTV cameras in Burmantofts & Xgreen charges for 2005/06 9,600.00 3,200.00 WY Police (Chapeltown) funding for Banstead Park, Pods and Insp Archer bi-monthly operations 15,000.00 WY Police - Operation Belford 1,250.00 WY Police - Operation Beacon 1,000.00 Contribution towards CCTV in Bellbrooke's car park 11,681.00 Race Hate Project 6,000.00 Total 26,850.00 14,881.00 6,000.00
Neighbourhood Management / Tasking Teams 66,194.16 Digital cameras for Neighbourhood Wardens 442.76 Richmond Hill Tasking Team budget transfer to Re:new 6,000.00 Nowell Mount Community Engagement - coach hire 28/10/05 440.00 White lighting scheme on Alston Lane & paths 3,000.00 Community clean-ups 7,076.00 315.00 Environmental Officer (H. Clifton Jan-Mar 06) Also see Streetscene 6,000.00 Burmantofts MSF Gardening Project (Groundwork Leeds) 6,000.00 Tasking Teams (earmarked) 12,920.40 Additional Tasking resources 24,000.00 Total 16,958.76 6,315.00 42,920.40
Small Grants 19,500.00 Small grants 10,177.50 2,245.00 7,077.50 Total 10,177.50 2,245.00 7,077.50
Streetscene / Cleaner Greener 57,095.55 Victoria Ave, East End Park - tree planting scheme 1,500.00 Skips for Burmantofts Clean Up 650.00 Tree Planting - young people scheme 75.00 CAST Service (2005/06 - not the full year) 1,545.00 Environmental Officer (H. Clifton Jan-Mar 06) Also see Neighbourhood Management 7,699.00 Gardening project in Osmondthorpe (Groundwork Leeds) 5,000.00 Strathmore Drive environmental improvements (Groundwork Leeds) 4,826.55 Schools gardening project (LEh) 1,000.00 Gipton Community Sports Field 20,000.00 "More Than A Number" 14,800.00 Total 5,725.00 16,570.55 34,800.00
Young People 168,390.00 Discovering Temple Newsam project 21,000.00 Breeze On Tour & Breeze Break-Out 9,580.00 Richmond Hill Out of School Activities project 5,140.00 Evening Soccer Coaching Part 1, 2 & 3 (Streetworks Soccer) 4,960.00 970.00 Drugs Education Project in schools 2,000.00 Summer play activities in Harehills / Seacroft (Leeds Play Network) 8,500.00 Seacroft film 'Fighting Talk' / Gipton film 'The Bad Penny' (Hi8us) 10,100.00 Burmantofts and Richmond Hill Activities (Youth Service) 8,940.00 Gipton and Harehills Acivities (Youth Service) 11,500.00 Contribution to Your Turn programme and peer mentoring (East Leeds NRT) 2,700.00 Killingbeck and Seacroft Activities SUMP (Youth Service) 10,000.00 Killingbeck and Seacroft Activities Big Ideas and On Street (Youth Service) 10,000.00 The Bridge Centre start up costs (Seacroft & Manston Family of schools) 25,000.00 Gipton Together - activities for children 8,000.00 Inner East Young Persons Bus 30,000.00 Total 94,840.00 18,550.00 55,000.00
415,295.76 180,936.31 63,361.55 170,997.90 As at 26 January 2006 Agenda Item: 10 (B)
Originator: Anna Turner Tel: 0113-02143234
Report of the: DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOODS AND HOUSING
Meeting: EAST (INNER) AREA COMMITTEE
Date: 8TH FEBRUARY 2006
Subject: WELLBEING BUDGET (CAPITAL) 2005/08 – UPDATE REPORT
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Ethnic minorities All East (Inner) Wards Women
Disabled people
Narrowing the Gap x
Council Delegated Executive x Delegated Executive Function Function available Function not available for for Call In Call In Details set out in the report
Executive Summary This report deals with the current position on Wellbeing Capital expenditure. It further presents a number of new projects for approval.
1.0 BACKGROUND:
1.1 At its meeting in April 2005, the Area Committee approved the principles of use for the capital element of the Wellbeing Budget. The total amount available to spend before the end of March 2007 is £440,755.
1.2 It was agreed that this amount is to be split between the three Inner East Leeds wards equally, with some being made available to Tasking Teams to spend on smaller capital items which should be identified as a result of neighbourhood management.
1.3 This means that £146,918 is available per ward over the three year lifespan of the scheme.
2.0 CURRENT CAPITAL COMMITMENTS:
2.1 The current approved expenditure for Wellbeing Capital schemes in all Inner East wards is as follows:
Killingbeck and Seacroft
Installation of CCTV cameras - £40,000 South Parkway parking scheme - £9,000 TOTAL - £49,000
Burmantofts and Richmond Hill
Traffic improvements in Cross Green Lane - £15,500; Paths in All Saints Park - £4,900; Burmantofts car park (contribution) - £6,000; Resurfacing on Nowell Mount - £2,000; Street nameplates - £4,100 TOTAL - £32,500
Gipton and Harehills
Lunans security scheme - £40,000; Bellbrookes car park (contribution) - £5,500 TOTAL - £45,500
3.0 WELLBEING CAPITAL SCHEMES FOR APPROVAL
3.1 The projects below have all been developed according to the procedures established and agreed by this Committee in April 2005. They have the support of the relevant ward Members and local communities.
a. Seacroft – Boggart Hill off-street parking (£42) – Appendix 1 b. Richmond Hill environmental projects (£40k) – Appendix 2 c. St Theresa’s Community Centre (£20k) – Appendix 3
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 It is recommended that the Area Committee note the current position on the capital element of the Wellbeing Budget.
4.2 It is further recommended that the Area Committee confirm the capital Expenditure in paragraph 3.0 of this report, as described in the appendices 1–3.
A AGENDA Design & Cost Report ITEM NO.: 1B
Capital Scheme No: DCR Clearance No. (This will be allocated by Parent Scheme No: Capital Control Finance.)
APPENDIX 1B REPORT OF Tony Butler, Head of Property Repairs and Maintenance REPORT TO East Inner Area Committee SUBJECT: Boggart Hill Crescent, off street parking Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Seacroft Ethnic Minorities Women Disabled People
Executive Board Eligible for Call In Not eligible for Call In x Decision (details contained within the report)
1.0. PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to:
a) obtain approval from the East (Inner) Area Committee for capital funding from the Wellbeing Budget to create an off street car parking area at Boggart Hill Crescent.
2.0. BACKGROUND
Boggart Hill Crescent is an area of properties primarily consisting of semi detached dwellings in the Seacroft area of Leeds. This proposal is being considered as a potential project to allow residents and visitors to park their cars nearer to their homes.
Residents have complained to the Police that due to the parking of vehicles on the road which is a considerable distance away from the properties vandalism and thefts have taken place. The scheme would improve visual and environmental aspects of the area.
3.0 DESIGN PROPOSALS / SCHEME DESCRIPTION
Measures being considered include the lowering of the kerb to allow vehicular access, levelling of the grass verged area adjacent to Boggart Hill Crescent to allow off street parking. Leeds East Homes will be recommending that the surface parking area should include Geo Blocks or Hexa Blocks which enables the grass to grow through the blocks and is aesthetically pleasing.
4.0. CONSULTATIONS
ORIGINATORS NAME: Tony Butler DATE: 21.1.06 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 2144271 FAX NUMBER:
Consultation with the Killingbeck and Seacroft elected Members, Leeds East Homes and relevant residents has taken place in the form of discussion and meetings. All concerned are supporting the initiative.
5.0 COMMUNITY SAFETY
The proposals contained in the report do have implications under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and these are as follows :- It is anticipated that the volume of complaints to the police in relation to theft, vandalism and other vehicle crime will be diminished.
6.0. PROGRAMME OF DATES FOR THE PROJECT
The project strategic programme shall be given in terms of:
• Tenders Out 10 April 2006 • Tenders In 15 May 2006 • Start on Site 19 June 2006 • Practical Completion 4 September 2006
7.0. SCHEME DESIGN ESTIMATES
Highways have carried – out an inspection at Boggart Hill Crescent and have estimated that the cost to carryout the work will be in the region of £42k.
8.0 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNCIL POLICIES
The scheme will be managed by Leeds East Homes who will ensure compliance with council policies on health and safety, environmental matters, equal opportunities and customer care.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
There is a risk of delaying of the works. Leeds East Homes will monitor the scheme and advise of any possible delays.
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
East (Inner) Area Committee is requested to; 1. approve the project brief as presented; 2. approve the scheme design as presented 3. authorise the capital expenditure of £42,000 on “other costs” AGENDA
Design & Cost Report ITEM NO.: Appendix 2B
DCR Clearance No. Capital Scheme No: (This will be allocated by
Capital Control Finance.) Parent Scheme No:
APPENDIX 2 REPORT OF RIZWANA RASHID
REPORT TO INNER EAST AREA COMMITTEE
SUBJECT: Richmond Hill Environmental Project
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Burmantofts and Richmond Hill Ethnic Minorities Women Disabled People
Executive Board Eligible for Call In Not eligible for Call In Decision (details contained within the report)
1.0. PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this report is to present to the Area Committee the design of the Richmond Hill Environmental Project.
2.0. BACKGROUND
One of the functions delegated to the area is the responsibility for community safety and the report provides project details that tackle some of these issues. The project is in two phases. Phase one involves the development of three areas into three separate bin yards in the Richmond Hill area.
The project will develop three bin yards for the following addresses:
• 37 and 39 Charlton Road • 45 and 47 Charlton Road • 53 and 55 Charlton Road
Phase two involves the boundary improvements for the following addresses:
• 11 and 13 Glensdale Mount • 38 and 40 Glensdale Mount • 21 and 23 East Park Grove • 29 and 31 East Park Grove
ORIGINATORS NAME: Rizwana Rashid DATE: 26 January 2006 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 0113 2143243 FAX NUMBER: 0113 2143239
The funding required for phase one and two is estimated at £40 000 will be allocated from the capital wellbeing budget for the Burmantofts and Richmond Hill ward.
3.0 DESIGN PROPOSALS
Phase one of the project will focus on re – developing the existing bin yards into improved sites. The project design can be broken down into the following stages:
• To take down the existing ‘front wall’ to give a finished height adjacent to the proposed gate. • Widen existing opening for the gate taking down necessary brickwork from yard wall. • Rebuild new end to wall with existing bricks. • Re - point brickwork on outside face of wall where necessary. • Supply and install 1800mm high steel gate • Supply and install 800mm high steel fence above wall • Take down and rebuild with new bricks internal bin yard wall to provide a finished height of 900mm.
Phase two of the project will focus on improving the boundaries of the above sites. The project design can be broken down into the following stages:
• Dismantle existing timber garden fencing and gates. • Remove all materials including posts, gates and concrete • Make good the ground • Uproot and remove hedges, shrubs, small trees and conifers in line of the proposed fencing and the gates • Supply and fix high railings to boundaries
The organisation Re’new are responsible for the project. Groundwork Leeds will actually undertake the work and will receive the capital wellbeing monies.
4.0. CONSULTATIONS
The project proposal was on the agenda on at the Richmond Hill forum chaired by a local ward member. The meeting was held on Monday 3rd October 2005 at a local venue, Victoria Primary School. The forum is a public meeting that is attended by people who live in the area and service providers. This particular meeting was attended by approximately 38 people of whom 20 were local residents. The organisation Renew has undertaken further consultation with local people who live in the immediate vicinity. The South East ALMO is also aware of the design and has consulted the local tenants. The various levels of consultation have resulted in an agreement for the environmental capital project.
5.0 CLEANER STREETS AND SAFER PLACES
The scheme is designed to impact on the local environment and encourage the area to become ‘cleaner and greener’.
6.0. PROGRAMME OF DATES FOR THE PROJECT
The timetable for the scheme will take 12 – 14 weeks to complete from the point of receiving approval from the committee.
7.0. SCHEME DESIGN ESTIMATES
Phase 1 – bin yards £11,035.66 Phase 2 - boundary improvements £18,958.96 Design fee at 10% £2,999.46 Subtotal £32,994.08 VAT £5,773.96 Sub total £38,768.04 Planning permission £135 TOTAL £38,903.04
8.0. CAPITAL FUNDING AND CASHFLOW
Phases 1 and 2 of the project include a contingency cost of 5% which is a total of £1,428.32.
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Inner East Area Committee is requested to approve the capital grant for the described environmental capital scheme APPENDIX 3B REF NO 1
DELEGATED DECISION FORM
DEPARTMENT Neighbourhoods and Housing
SUBJECT 2 Inner East Area Committee Capital Budget 2004-7 – St Theresa’s Community Centre in Cross Gates
DECISION 3 COUNCIL EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION √ DECISION DECISION DECISION √ (KEY) (MAJOR) (OTHER)
NOT SUBJECT TO 4EXEMPT FROM 4EXEMPT FROM NOT SUBJECT TO CALL IN CALL IN: YES / NO CALL IN: YES / NO CALL IN
AFFECTED WARDS Temple Newsam
ADVICE SOUGHT Yes No Legal √ Finance √ Personnel √ Equal Opportunities √ Other (please specify) √
This building is located just within the boundary of Killingbeck and Seacroft Ward. It was originally constructed as a single form entry school and opened in 1930. The school was extended on several occasions and in the 1980’s moved to the ex – St Kevin’s school site on Barwick Road. After several years lying idle the building transformed into a community centre. It is owned by the Catholic Church (Diocese of Leeds) The centre provides a number of self-funding activities including:
• Under 5’s nursery • Good Neighbours • Indoor Bowls • Cubs, Guides, Beavers, Rainbows, Brownies • Weight Watchers • Youth Group
The recipients of these activities mainly reside in the three wards of Killingbeck & Seacroft, Temple Newsam and Cross Gates & Whinmoor.
The building is now in needs of urgent refurbishment with the following improvements required:
• Window replacement • Replacement of heating system • Re-siting of w/c’s and new w/c’s • New storage area
1 This reference number will be assigned by Constitution and Corporate Governance Unit and notified to you 2 A brief heading should be inserted 3 Brief details of the decision should be inserted. This note must set out the substance of the decision, options considered and the reason for deciding upon the chosen option, although care must be taken not to disclose any confidential or commercially sensitive information. Guidance on the substance of the note is available from Constitution and Corporate Governance Unit 4 For Key and Major decisions only. If exempt from Call In details to be provided in the report. The Call In period expires at 5.00 pm on the 5th working day after publication. Scrutiny Support will notify decision makers of matters called in by no later than 12.00 noon on the 6th day. • Ensuring building is DDA compliant
The estimated cost of this work is £60,000; with £10,000 already raised by the Centre’s Management Committee and a further £20,000 agreed by the Outer East Area Committee at its meeting in November. The East (Inner) Area Management Committee will support the project to the value of £20,000 from the Wellbeing Capital allocation for the Killingbeck and Seacroft Ward. The Centre hopes to secure a further £10,000 from the Diocese and/or through further fund-raising activities. At is meeting in April, the East (Inner) Area Committee agreed the general principles according to which the capital wellbeing programme was to be developed (minute 90 (a) – (c) refers). This proposal follows the established principles; has been developed in consultation with the communities and organisations involved and further agreed with the relevant Ward members. All the pertinent parties are supporting the project. The proposal will be presented for ratification by the East (Inner) Area Committee at its next meeting in February.
The project will be delivered by St Theresa’s Community Centre Committee with work starting on site in the new year.
Payment should be made to :
ACCOUNT NAME: ST. THERESA'S PARISH CENTRE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE BANK: NATWEST BRANCH: 69, STATION ROAD, CROSS GATES, LEEDS. LS15 8DJ ACCOUNT NUMBER: 32209401 SORT CODE: 52-30-11
DECLARED OFFICER / MEMBER INTERESTS5 None
DISPENSATION BY STANDARDS DATE: ………………………………………………….. COMMITTEE
BACKGROUND PAPERS6 Attached
CONFIDENTIAL YES NO √ RULE NO 10.47 ( ) REPORT Yes No Date DETAILS OF Executive Member ______CONSULTATION Ward Councillors √ Ongoing through 2005 UNDERTAKEN (OTHER Chief Officers Affected ______REASONS/ Others (Specify) √ Community Fora ORGANISATIONS CONSULTED)
CONTACT PERSON CONTACT NO 2143234 Anna Turner
AUTHORISED DATE SIGNATORY8
9Date Published: Last Date for call in:
5 No officer having a pecuniary interest in any matter should take a decision in relation to that matter. Other interests of a non- disqualifying nature should be recorded here. 6 A separate Index should be prepared if necessary. ALL DOCUMENTATION UPON WHICH THE DECISION WAS BASED MUST BE RETAINED AND BE READILY ACCESSIBLE SO IT CAN BE PRODUCED SHOULD THE DECISION BE CHALLENGED 7 Access to Information Procedure Rules 8 The signatory must be duly authorised by the Director to make the decision in accordance with the Department’s scheme. It is not acceptable for the signature to be ‘pp’ for an authorised signatory. For Key Decisions only, the date of the authorised signature signifies that, at the time, the Officer was content that the decision should be taken. However, should representations be received following public availability of reports the signatory will consider the effect which such representations should have upon the final decision. 9 Constitution and Corporate Governance Unit will enter these dates RELEVANT SCRUTINY BOARD
AGENDA
Design & Cost Report ITEM NO.:
DCR Clearance No. Capital Scheme No:
Parent Scheme No:
Appendix 4B REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF LEARNING AND LEISURE
REPORT TO DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES
SUBJECT: East End Park Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For:
Burmantofts & Richmond Hill Ethnic Minorities Women Disabled People
Executive Board Eligible for Call In √ Not eligible for Call In Decision (details contained within the report)
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 The purpose of this report is to request a fully funded injection of £9,000 from the East (Inner) Area Management Committee into the 2005/06 Capital Programme for improvement works within East End Park.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 East End Park is one of Burmantoft’s and Richmond Hill’s larger community parks, providing an oasis for recreation and leisure activities, including bowling greens, sports pitches and changing rooms along with a children’s play area. Unfortunately East End Park has suffered from more than its fair share of anti social behaviour, resulting in significant damage to the park and the facilities there.
2.2 Over recent years, however it has been recognised that Parks and recreational spaces provide a vital community resource, providing both somewhere to exercise, be it formally via sport or informally through gentle walks or play. This has lead to improvement works being implemented initially through the work of the former Community Involvement Team and now Area Management Committee. These improvements include the refurbishment of the playground and the provision of a teen shelter and goal ends.
2.3 Recently the park has seen a Friends’ Group, formed, which with officers from Learning and Leisure’s Parks and Countryside have highlighted further areas for improvement and together they are working towards developing a management plan for the park.
ORIGINATORS NAME: VICTORIA NUNNS DATE: 30/12/05 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 237 5333 FAX NUMBER: 265 0055
2.4 By working with the local community and through the development of the management plan it is hoped that we will be help develop a safer and stronger community.
3.0 DESIGN PROPOSALS / SCHEME DESCRIPTION
3.1 The proposed work shall be undertaken by Parks and Countryside’s in house landscape team includes:-
• Installation of a new fence line
4.0. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 Consultation with local residents and ward members is now complete.
5.0 COMMUNITY SAFETY
5.1 That the proposals contained in the report do have implications under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and these are as follows: -
Reduction in Anti Social behaviour, through the provision of diversionary activities
5.2 Throughout all process of implementation the appropriate measures will be taken to ensure that no member of the public is put at risk.
5.3 All aspects of safety have been considered to ensure that upon completion of the project all current legislation is adhered to in respect of safety.
5.4 The works will fall under the construction, design and management regulations 1994.
6.0. PROGRAMME
6.1.1 Works on site are due to commence in March ’06 with a completion date of the end of April ‘06
7.0 SCHEME DESIGN ESTIMATE
7.1 The total cost for the work is £9,000
8.0. CAPITAL FUNDING AND CASHFLOW
Previous total Authority TOTAL TO MARCH FORECAST to Spend on this scheme 2005 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009 ON £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's LAND (01) 0.0 CONSTRUCTION (02) & (03) FURN & EQPT (05) 0.0 DESIGN FEES (06) OTHER COSTS (07) 0.0 TOTALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Authority to Spend TOTAL TO MARCH FORECAST required for this Approval 2005 2005/06 2006/073 2007/08 2008/09 2009 ON £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's LAND (01) 0.0 CONSTRUCTION (02) & (03) 9000.0 9000.0 FURN & EQPT (05) 0.0 DESIGN FEES (06) OTHER COSTS CDM (07) 0.0 0.0 TOTALS 9000.0 0.0 9000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total overall Funding TOTAL TO MARCH FORECAST (As per latest Capital 2005 2005/06 2006/073 2007/08 2008/09 2009 ON Programme) £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's
AMT 9000.0
Total Funding 0.0 0.0 9000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Balance / Shortfall = 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.0. REVENUE EFFECTS
9.1.1 On going maintenance of the site will be undertaken by Parks and Countryside through existing revenue budgets.
REVENUE EFFECTS 2005/06 2006/07 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS £000's £000'S EMPLOYEES PREMISES COSTS 0.0 0.0 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 0.0 0.0 EXTERNAL INCOME GENERATED 0.0 0.0 ASSET RENTAL 0.0 0.0
10.0. RISK ASSESSMENTS
10.1 A full and comprehensive risk assessment will be undertaken prior to work commencing on site. The contractor will ensure that whilst construction work is being undertaken on site the safety of members of the public is maintained at all times.
11.0. COMPLIANCE WITH COUNCIL POLICIES
11.1 This Project complies with Council Policies, Strategies and Initiatives and the Council’s Corporate Plan. In particular health and safety, environmental matters, equal opportunities issues and customer care are all relevant to this project.
12.0. RECOMMENDATIONS
12.1 The East (Inner) Area Committee are requested to approve the expenditure of £9,000 towards the new fencing as a part of overall improvements at East End Park.
12.2 The Director of Leaning and Leisure is requested to approve a fully funded injection to the 2005/06 Capital Programme of £9,000 funded by the East Area Management Team.
12.3 The Director of Corporate Services is requested to give authority to incur expenditure of £9,000 for capital works.
Agenda Item: 10 (C) Originator: Anna Turner
Tel: 0113 – 2143 234
Report of the Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing
East (Inner) Area Committee
Date: 8th February 2006
Subject: Wellbeing Budget – Revenue Proposals 2006/07
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Ethnic minorities Gipton and Harehills Killingbeck and Seacroft Women Burmantofts and Richmond Hill Disabled people
Narrowing the Gap x
Council Delegated Executive Delegated Executive Function Function available x Function not available for for Call In Call In Details set out in the report
Executive Summary
The report explains the considerations involved in the appointment of a CROW officer for East Leeds and requests the Area Committee to contribute half of the necessary finance to establish such a post as a shared resource between the Outer and Inner East Leeds. The funding requested is £15,500 from 2006/07 Wellbeing Budget.
1.0 Purpose Of This Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider the option of establishing a post of a CROW officer for both the East Leeds Area Committees to assist in dealing with issues of anti-social behaviour, crime reduction and public reassurance.
2.0 Background Information
2.1 At its meeting on 7th December 2005, the Area Committee considered and agreed a number of future Wellbeing revenue commitments (minute 60 b&c refers).
2.2 Assuming the total forecast budget for 2006/07 to be £274,000 - this means that to date, there are the following commitments agreed:
Definite commitments: o CCTV maintenance and monitoring costs £37,000 o CAST van and operatives £10,000 o Additional wardens £97,000 Potential commitments: o Small grant scheme £20,000 o Tasking teams £30,000 ------£194,000
Potential remaining for commissioning further projects £80,000
2.3 In April 2005 a report was submitted to Scrutiny Board giving a number of options as to how closures of public rights of way in trouble spots could be financed. It considered the cost of the closure itself rather than time and cost of an officer working to get a closure. The decision of scrutiny board was: that the recommendation of the inquiry is noted and that, as part of the 2006/07 budget setting process, consideration be given to the establishment of a budget to be held and administered by the Neighbourhoods and Housing Department for closure of rights of way applications. This report is included as Appendix 2C.
2.4 CROW is 'The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It provides new powers to close and divert public rights of ways for the purpose of crime reduction and crime prevention. There are a number of conditions that have to be met before closure of these ‘rights of way’ will be considered. This is a time consuming process and one requiring a certain amount of specialist knowledge.
3.0 CROW officer for East Leeds
3.1 The work involved in obtaining a closure is often very intensive and time consuming and cannot be met by way of utilising current staff within the Community Safety section of Neighbourhoods and Housing Department. It is anticipated that one full time officer could oversee up to ten potential closures per year.
3.2 At its meeting in December, the East (Outer) Area Committee agreed the funding for a half of the CROW officer’s post, providing the other half is funded through the East (Inner) Area Committee.
3.3 The cost (including all on costs) of such an officer graded at SO2 would be £31,000 per annum. The cost to each East Leeds Area Committee would be £15,500 per annum.
3.4 This report requests the release of funds from the Well Being Budget for 2006/07 to support half the cost of providing such an officer for East Leeds. The post would be initially for two years and will require a further commitment from the Well Being Budget in 2007/8. A follow up report will be submitted to this Committee to evaluate the project and to confirm 2007/8 funding.
3.5 The Officer will be line managed by East Leeds Community Safety Co-ordinator and their time will be split evenly between the inner and outer east areas. The project would start in April 2006.
3.5 Appendix 1C provides further information about CROW.
4.0 Implications For Council Policy And Governance
The project supports 2 priorities highlighted in the Area Delivery Plan :
• To tackle crime and anti-social behaviour • To improve the environment and streetscene
5.0 Recommendations
5.1 It is recommended that the Committee agree the release of £15.500 from the Wellbeing budget for 2006/07 to contribute to the joint CROW officer for all of East Leeds
5.2 It is further recommended that the Committee consider an additional £15.500 from 2007/8 following an evaluation report.
Appendix 1C - CROW
Q. What is CROW?
A. It is 'The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000'
Q. What does it do?
A. It provides new powers to close and divert public rights of ways for the purpose of crime reduction and crime prevention.
Q. How does it do this?
A. The Secretary of State officially designates areas
Q. How are areas designated?
A. They must fulfil the criteria set out in Sections 118B and 119B Highways Act 1980 before a Special Diversion or Extinguishment Order can be made
Q. What is this criteria?
A. The conditions to be met when making an order: (a) A highway authority may only make an order in an area that has been designated by the Secretary of State by order; (b) The making of such orders must be expedient, for the purpose of preventing or reducing crime, which would otherwise disrupt the life of the community, that the highway should be 'stopped-up or diverted; (c) High levels of crime affect premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway and the existence of the highway facilitates the persistent commission of criminal offences; (d) Before making a Special Extinguishment Order, the highway authority shall consult the police authority for the area in which the highway lies, and also to make the fire authority aware of the proposal.
Q. How many footpaths in Leeds have been designated?
A. In February 2004 - 7 areas in Leeds were designated; these areas contain a total of 39 footpaths.
Q. What are the areas
A. The seven areas are: 1. Lulworth Crescent, Austhorpe Lane, the Fold, Pendas's way, Barwick Road, LS15 2. St. Albans Estate, Gipton, LS9. 3. St. Martins Gardens, Chapeltown, LS7. 4. Ganton Steps, Elm Street, Beulah Terrace, Glossop Street, Little London LS6 5. Wensley gardens, Wensley Green, Chapel Allerton, LS7 6. Brooklands Court, Lambrigg Crescent, Murton Close, Seacroft LS14 7. Calverly Gardens, Langley Estate, Bramley LS13
Q. What have we done so far with the 39 footpaths?
The were 39 footpaths were ranked in a top 10 order according to the following criteria: • The area is suffering from high amounts of crime which are directly linked to the presence of the footpath • An alternative route is available • Other methods to reduce criminal activity have taken place but have failed • Total support from local residents • The footpath has been well maintained in terms of lighting and trimming of vegetation.
The top 10 footpaths are: 1. The Fold. 2. Ganton Steps 3. Johnson Street 4. St. Albans (long ginnel) 5. St. Martins Gardens 6. Calverley Gardens 7. Barrack Road 8. Brooklands Close 9. Lambrigg Crescent 10. St. Martins View.
Q. Have any footpaths actually been closed?
A. Only one so far, The Fold at Leeds 14.
Q. Why only one?
A. Presently no one is employed to carry out the work. The first closure was facilitated by the Alley Gating co-ordinator within Leeds Community Safety who is not funded to do such work and as a consequence, Alley Gating work suffered.
Q. What is being done to rectify this?
A. The scrutiny board of LCC has recommended that funding is made available to carry out what they see as important work. We anticipate that an officer will be appointed when funding is available.
Q. What can Area Committees do in the meantime?
A. Providing that the closure is straight forward and meets with no objections and it has been designated, then LCS can advise on how to proceed and how much it is likely to cost. There is also the alternative of Alley Gating which is a different process.
Appendix 2C
Report of Scrutiny Board (Environment and Community Safety)
Inquiry into the Closure of Public Rights of Way for the Purpose of Crime Prevention
Date of Publication: July 2005 Report of Scrutiny Board (Environment and Community Safety)
Inquiry into the Closure of Public Rights of Way for the Purpose of Crime Prevention
SESSIONAL EVIDENCE
Reports and Publications Submitted
• Report from the Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing entitled ‘The Closure of Public Rights of Way for the Purpose of Crime Prevention’, dated 19th April 2005.
(copies of the written submission is available on request to the Scrutiny Support Unit)
Witnesses Heard
• Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing department • Head of Leeds Community Safety, Neighbourhoods and Housing department • Principal Rights of Way Officer, Learning and Leisure department
Dates of Scrutiny
• 19th April 2005 • 18th July 2005
Site Visits
• None undertaken
Report of Scrutiny Board (Environment and Community Safety)
Inquiry into the Closure of Public Rights of Way for the Purpose of Crime Prevention
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scrutiny Board (Neighbourhoods and Housing) considered a report on the closure of public rights of way for the purposes of crime prevention at their meeting on 19th April 2005. Cllr Galdas, then a member of Scrutiny Board (Leisure) was co-opted on to the Board for this inquiry.
1.2 At the time, the Scrutiny Board (Neighbourhoods and Housing) did not publish a report detailing its conclusions.
1.3 Scrutiny Board (Environment and Community Safety) now includes community safety and crime prevention in its remit. This Board has therefore published this report detailing the conclusions of Scrutiny Board (Neighbourhoods and Housing) with any additional comments from this new Board.
(A summary of the evidence considered in arriving at our conclusions is presented at Appendix 1.)
2.0 THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY
2.1 The purpose of the inquiry was to make an assessment of and, where appropriate, make recommendations on the following areas:
• Details of the powers for Councils in the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 and amendments to the Highways Act 2000, specifically on the closure of public rights of way • Implementation of the CROW Act in Leeds • Resources available to implement the CROW Act • Alleygating • Options for the future.
3.0 THE BOARDS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 We agree that an overview of all CROW applications across the city is needed. We conclude that the option of providing a budget for CROW applications should be pursued by the department and the Executive Board. The budget should be established and held centrally within the Neighbourhoods and Housing department. The department can then judge the quality of requests coming in and prioritise applications across the city. It is acknowledged that such a budget would not be able to satisfy demand and that the department will need to establish which cases are priority.
RECOMMENDATION 1
That the Executive Board agrees to establish in the Council budget for 2006/07 a budget to be held and administered by the Neighbourhoods and Housing department, for CROW applications.
3.2 The inquiry by Scrutiny Board (Neighbourhoods and Housing) produced the above recommendation, which this Board agrees with. We also had further discussions with the department about the possibility of pursuing a public inquiry where objections have been made to a CROW application. Whilst acknowledging that public inquiries are costly to the authority, we feel that in certain situations it is important for the Council to take a stand and go through the full process of public inquiry. We therefore recommend that the department considers pursuing a public inquiry where necessary. This may involve an amendment to the criteria suggested for filtering CROW applications.
RECOMMENDATION 2
We recommend that the Neighbourhoods and Housing department considers, where necessary, undertaking a public inquiry where objections are made to a CROW application.
4.0 SUMMARY
4.1 We concluded that the Executive Board should establish in the Council budget for 2006/07 a budget to be held and administered by the Neighbourhoods and Housing department, for CROW applications.
Report Agreed by the Board on…………………………………………………….…..…….
………………………………………………………..….. 18th July 2005
Signed by the Chair of Scrutiny Board (Environment and Community Safety)
Appendix 1 Report of Scrutiny Board (Environment and Community Safety)
Inquiry into the Closure of Public Rights of Way for the Purpose of Crime Prevention
Summary of written and verbal evidence
1.0 INFORMATION RECEIVED
1.1 Members learned that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has amended Sections 118b and 119b of the Highways Act 1980 to provide new powers to close and divert public rights of ways for the purpose of crime reduction and crime prevention in areas that had been designated by the Secretary of State as areas of high crime. These are known as Special Extinguishment and Diversion Orders.
1.2 The Board learned that footpaths in areas designated as ‘high crime areas’ can be considered for diversion or closure if they fulfil the criteria set out in Sections 118B and 119B Highways Act 1980. These conditions state that a Special Extinguishment and Diversion Order must be expedient for the purpose of preventing or reducing crime, which would otherwise disrupt the life of the community, and there must be high levels of crime affecting premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway and the existence of the highway facilitates the persistent commission of criminal offences.
1.3 Members noted that there were 39 footpaths within the designated areas in Leeds but not all met the above criteria and were therefore ranked according to the following criteria:
• The area is suffering from high amounts of crime which are directly linked to the presence of the footpath • An alternative route is available • Other methods to reduce criminal activity have taken place but have failed • Total support from local residents • The footpath has been well maintained in terms of lighting and trimming of vegetation.
1.4 The Board considered the implementation of the CROW Act in Leeds. Members noted that the Corporate Management Team agreed in May 2003 that Leeds Community Safety (LCS) would facilitate the process but the response and application of the closures would be handled corporately by the Council.
1.5 The Board learned that in February 2004 Defra confirmed that the seven areas Leeds submitted had been designated as high crime areas. The seven areas were:
• Lulworth Crescent, Austhorpe Lane, The Fold, Penda's Way, Barwick Road, Leeds 15 (Submission 1) • St. Albans Estate, Gipton, Leeds 9 (Submission 2) • St. Martins Gardens, Chapeltown, Leeds 7 (Submission 3) • Ganton Steps, Elm Street, Beulah Terrace, Glossop Street, Little London, Leeds 6 (Submission 4) • Wensley Gardens, Wensley Green, Chapel Allerton, Leeds 7 (Submission 5) • Brooklands Court, Lambrigg Crescent, Murton Close, Seacroft, Leeds 14 (Submission 6) • Calverley Gardens, Langley Estate, Bramley, Leeds13 (Submission 7)
1.6 Members noted that the ten worst offending footpaths identified are as follows:
• The Fold - Submission 1 • Ganton Steps - Submission 4 • Johnson Street - Submission 4 • St. Albans (long ginnel) - Submission 2 • St. Martins Gardens - Submission 3 • Calverley Gardens - Submission • Barrack Road - Submission 1 • Brooklands Close - Submission 6 • Lambrigg Crescent - Submission 6 • St. Martins View - Submission 3
1.7 The Board considered the process in place for making an order. Members noted that ward members, local residents, statutory undertakers and prescribed organisations are informally consulted, then a report (including the consultation responses and evidence that the path meets the legal criteria) is sent to the Director of Learning and Leisure. If the Director is satisfied with the report, he authorises a Special Diversion or Extinguishment Order.
1.8 Members learned that the next step is for Legal and Democratic Services officers make the Order then carry out a 28 day formal consultation to allow objections and representations to be made. Any objections that cannot be resolved lead to the whole case being referred back to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will appoint an independent inspector to hold a Local Public Enquiry which will take a further 6-9 months with a cost implication to the applicant (the council).
1.9 The Board noted that, to date one closure has been brought to completion. Leeds Community Safety currently has on file (including those in designated areas) over 140 referrals.
1.10 Members next learned about resourcing of Special Orders and noted that there is no funding allocated to CROW work. Resources are needed for administrative and consultation work (approximately £2750 for the Order completed), plus the physical closure of the footpath (anything between £10,000-£200,000 depending on the presence of underground utilities).
1.11 The Board acknowledged that alleygating was a different procedure with a different legal process. Members learned that alleygating involves gating the small narrow back roads of through-terraced properties that contribute to high incidents of crime and anti social behaviour. It has been successfully implemented in many areas (including Liverpool, Manchester and Middlesbrough) with excellent crime reduction results and a very high public satisfaction rate. The Board noted that an alleygating co-ordinator has been established by Leeds Community Safety to progress and co- ordinate two pilot alleygating schemes in the Hyde Park and Harehills areas of Leeds.
1.12 Members noted that City Services and the Corporate Priorities Board have agreed that if funding is secured centrally the CROW Officer will be based within Leeds Community Safety, with City Services and Learning & Leisure Public Rights of Way providing appropriate support in obtaining closures.
1.13 The Board next considered options for the way forward. Members acknowledged that currently there is no budget allocated for CROW and work can be complex and costly. Alternative options would be to establish a budget to deal with CROW work, held either centrally or via Area Committees.
1.14 Members noted that criteria would be set to filter CROW applications:
• High levels of the area’s crime and anti-social behaviour can be proved to be linked to the path and other crime reduction techniques have had minimal or no impact on the problem; • Any indication that there would be valid local opposition to the closure (which could thus lead to a public inquiry) will result in the path being classed as unsuitable for CROW; • Identification of utilities running under the path that would need re-locating at the authority’s expense or where capital costs would exceed a closure limit of £15,000 will be classed as unsuitable for CROW.
1.15 The Board learned that if the path is identified as suitable for closure and already within the CROW designated areas the closure process will then start. If the path is not in a designated area the process for CROW designation would have to be completed before closure. Closures would only be affected following the full implementation of the suitability criteria (which would also give the Council clear and valid reasons why a path is not suitable for closure).
1.16 Members noted that the full year salary costs at top of scale, plus on-costs, of an SO2 CROW officer (working as part of a team, within Leeds Community Safety, which includes the burglary reduction co-ordinator and alleygating co-ordinator), would be £30,800. It is estimated that a single officer could progress in the region of 10 schemes per year.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Members discussed the length of officer time taken to go through the procedures to close one path (140 hours). Members learned that the legal process involved was lengthy and complicated. The Board was also made aware that not every investigation about a possible closure led to a closure, but that all investigations are time consuming, involving gathering information from the police, doing historical checks, establishing land ownership, and dealing with any objections. Members noted that experience of going through the CROW process would hopefully lead to time savings and efficiencies.
2.2 The Board considered how public rights of way were determined and noted that there is a definitive map which is a legal document showing recognised public rights of way. Members noted however that other public rights of way may exist that have not been claimed. These public rights of way can be claimed in a number of ways: use or evidence, historical evidence or common law.
2.3 Members were pleased to note that officers did ‘pre-Order consultation’ with organisations, such as the Ramblers Association and the British Horse Society, as much as possible. This served the purpose of avoiding objections to potential Orders from the organisations, as far as possible, by involving them at an early stage.
2.4 The Board discussed the issue of valid local opposition to CROW applications and felt that it was important for communities to feel empowered to find solutions to crime problems in their area. Members felt that it was important to find a balance between the views of the majority and the minority. Members also supported the position that closures or diversions of public rights of way should be used as a last resort, only when other crime reduction measures had failed.
2.5 The Board considered the options for the future. Members agreed with the suggested budget of £150,000 for CROW work in the city, which would enable in the region of 10 closures to proceed. Members noted that there was an overwhelming demand for closure of public rights of way across the city, for crime prevention purposes. Officers suggested that dealing with as many relatively simple cases across the city was the best use of the budget. Officers also informed Members that if the budget was devolved to Area Committees, with the aim that each Area Committee would undertake a CROW closure, then one complicated case could use the whole budget for all of the city.
2.6 Members discussed the criteria for filtering CROW applications. While acknowledging that going through a public inquiry would be costly to the Council, the Board agreed that sometimes it was important to take a stand, where necessary, and go through the full public inquiry process to try and secure a closure.
2.7 The Board agreed that an overview of applications across the city was needed. Members favoured the option of a centrally held budget with an officer to receive all applications and progress schemes.
Agenda Item: 11
Originator: Sandra Fowler Tel: 0113 214 3495
Report of the Director of Neighbourhoods and Housing
East (Inner) Area Committee
Date: 8th February 2006
Subject: Consultative Forums – November/December Cycle
Electoral Wards Affected: Specific Implications For: Ethnic minorities Gipton and Harehills Killingbeck and Seacroft Women Burmantofts and Richmond Hill Disabled people
Narrowing the Gap x
Council Delegated Executive x Delegated Executive Function Function available Function not available for for Call In Call In Details set out in the report
Executive Summary
This report provides the Area Committee with an update on the consultative forums which have taken place during the November/December cycles
1.0 Purpose Of This Report
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of key discussions points and relevant actions from each of the forum meetings for the East (Inner) Area Committee.
2.0 Background Information
2.1 A total of five forum meetings were held in the areas of Harehills, Gipton, Burmantofts, Richmond Hill and Killingbeck and Seacroft during November and December 2005
3.0 Main Issues
3.1 Each forum meeting had a particular service theme to discuss and an appropriate officer representing that service area was in attendance. The services considered were:
• Harehills Forum – Streetscene
• Burmantofts Forum – Young People • Killingbeck and Seacroft – Community Safety
• Gipton Forum – Housing Issues
3.2 An update was given to each forum on the work by the relevant Tasking Team in the area. However only the environmental audit could be reported on at these meetings until a new way of reporting on the crime statistics could be established, hopefully for the next round of meetings.
4.0 Recommendations
4.1 Members are asked to note the contents of this report for information
Neighbourhoods & Housing Department Inner East Leeds Area Committee
Burmantofts Forum
Meeting held on Tuesday 6th December 2005 St Patricks Primary School
Present: Cllr Ralph Pryke (Chair), Cllr Richard Brett, Cllr David Hollingsworth, Brenda Morris (Gargrave Tenants), Sadie Fisher (Gargrave Tenants), Elizabeth Preston (Gargrave Tenants), Philomena Hughes (St Patricks Primary School), David Fawcett (St Peters Primary), Graham Moore (Phoenix Residents Association), Adam Brannen (Area Management Team), Mike Cox (Streetscene), Sean Parker (TRAC), Jaki O’Toole (TRAC), Fathema Khatun (RtC), Jane Weston (RtC), Sue Balcomb (East Leeds Health For All), Glen O’Malley (LCC Youth Service), Steve Vowles (Leeds East Homes), Sandra Fowler (East Leeds Area Management)
Apologies: Reverend Harper, Sarah Allkins (Lincoln Green Youth Theatre), Samantha Pratt (Victim Support), Wendy Davis & Margaret Carroll (BSA), Lynn Barnes & Janet Kavanagh (Neighbourhood Wardens), Michael Williams (Ridings Housing), Chapeltown Neighbourhood Policing Team, Anne Nichols (St Mary’s Church), Phil Rone, Ken Weightman, Enid Griffin
1.0 Welcome / introductions Action
1.1 Cllr Pryke welcomed everyone to the meeting
2.0 Apologies
2.1 Apologies were noted.
3.0 Minutes from 13th September 2005 and matters arising
3.1 Agreed as an accurate record.
3.2 Arising from 5.11 – Victim Support SF to follow GM asked for update on the use of the surgeries set up in Phoenix House up
4.0 Burmantofts Tasking Meeting Update
4.1 Paper circulated and explained by SF
4.2 Cllr Pryke raised concerns of a resident in Ebor Gardens who felt that most of the crime in the area was drug related. Cllr Pryke confirmed that he had contacted Chapeltown Police regarding the work of the Drug Squad but indicated that he would approach Killingbeck for the same information Cllr P 1 of 4 4.3 Problems with open space on Cromwell Heights and access to St Peters School over security fence – to be raised with Leeds East Homes
5.0 Young People
5.1 Glen O’Malley, the Senior Youth Worker for the area attended the meeting for this item and outlined the current youth provision in the area which totals 75 sessions (240 youth work hours in the whole of Glen’s area):
• Lincoln Green – 4 nights per week • Nowell Mount – 4 nights per week • Bellbrookes – detached youth work with assistance from the Neighbourhood Wardens, with extra provision over the Xmas holidays • Ebor Gardens – now looking at provision • Targetting shops selling alcohol and substances to young people
GO’M confirmed that his area of working now covers the same patch as 13 Neighbourhood Wardens and that resources for the Youth Service is a pressing issue.
Cllr Brett compared the funding of the Youth Service with other cities and confirmed that some resources from East Leeds Area Committee had been given towards some provision but was this enough?
GO’M confirmed that there were pockets of funding nationally that can be applied for but by voluntary organisations who can then take ownership of the funding and direct the Youth Service to take on work on their behalf.
Positive Futures also work in the Burmantofts area with young people and local leisure centres also provide provision.
A question was asked about youth provision during school holidays. GO’M confirmed that there have been active programmes for youth living in the area but they had been picked up by minibus and transported to activities in other parts of the city. He also stated that playschemes were voluntarily run and it was not down to the Youth Service to provide playschemes.
Cllr Pryke thanked Glen for his work in the area on behalf of the Forum
6 & 7 Questions from the Floor and Any Other Business
• What is to happen to the all weather pitch and playing field when St Agnes’ is pulled down? St Peters After School Club have been trying to get the land transferred but now understood that the land had been sold.
Cllr Pryke and his Ward colleagues agreed to look into the situation
• Mike Cox, Streetscene, outlined the new procedures for recycling throughout the City
• Next meeting of the Burmantofts and Harehills Residents Network (part of the formal structure of the St James’ Partnership) is scheduled for
2 of 4 Thursday 26th January 2006 6pm at Archway. An additional representative is being sought from within the Harehills Neighbourhood Renewal area to sit on the Network
• East Leeds Area Committee would be meeting tomorrow at 7pm at Seacroft Library for those who wish to attend
• Is the CCTV camera system in the highrise blocks to be upgraded? Steve Vowles confirmed that it was the intention of Leeds East Homes to upgrade and replace some cameras. Entrance ways and lifts will be covered by the cameras but not individual landings
• When will the plans for Beckett Street Cemetary be made public? Adam Brannen confirmed that the feasibility study should be completed before Xmas and a management plan was expected to be put together in the next 6 months
• Why are there no bus services running between the Anglers Club and Compton Road? More buses are needed Cllr Pryke responded that neither the Council nor Metro could control or influence local bus services, which are not subsidised. All complaints need to go direct to the First Bus company. He did however report forthcoming changes to the No 4 bus route.
The Chair then closed the meeting and wished everyone a Merry Xmas and New Year
8.0 Date and time of next meeting
Tuesday 7th March 2006 at St Agnes’ Church Hall
3 of 4 Neighbourhoods & Housing Department Outer East Leeds Area Committee
Gipton Forum
Meeting held on 14.12.05
Present: Phil Danby, Richard Brabbs, Wendy Breakwell, Joan Oates, Joyce White, Shirley Tennant, Ralf Pryke, Janet Heighton, Jane Halladay, Steve Vowels, Fathema Khaten, Christina Cambridge, Roger Harington, Adele Vickers, Carol Gray, Susan Dobson, Maureen Thompson, Dawn Harrison Burton, Frances Harrison Burton, Andrew Tear, Anna Turner, A. Armstrong, J. Akhtar (in the chair)
Apologies: Lesley Jackson, Terri Loney, Mike Cox, John Woolmer, Mrs. Wonnacott, Sandra Van Rossum, Ruth Drake, Gerard Tinsdale, Cllr A. Taylor
1.0 Introductions and Apologies Action Cllr Javaid Akhtar chaire the meeting in Cllr’s Alan Taylor’s absence. 1.1 Cllr Akhtar welcomed all to the meeting.
2.0 Minutes of the last meeting
2.1 Minutes of the last meeting were accepted. 3.0 Matters Arising from the Minutes
3.1 There were no matters arising from last meeting.
4.0 10 Minute Open Floor
4.1 There was a short discussion on what EASEL was (East and South East Leeds) regeneration scheme. This will involve a comprehensive regeneration of East Leeds (incl. Gipton). Residents and communities at large will have an opportunity to get involved in the process.
4.2 Members of a new group set up to commemorate the local family who died in the fire are organising a trust fund. The group NK and C are organising a fun day to raise funds to commemorate the family and to set up a trust fund in case of other disasters. The group are appealing for volunteers to help with organisation. The fun day will happen in April. Area Management Team will assist with organisation, in terms of both, expertise and contribution to funding.
5.0 Gipton Tasking Meeting Update
5.1 The Forum discussed: • Activity of CAST – environmental team, dedicated to working in Inner East Leeds. Residents noticed an improvement in general tidiness in the area. A list of jobs in Gipton for Sept. – Nov. was given out; it was very impressive! • Leeds East Homes Estate Caretaking Team – also working in the area. • Planned – a dedicated enforcement officer – e.g. dealing with rubbish in gardens, trade waste, tipping, dog nuisance, etc • Suggested – analysis of repeated referrals to CAST 1 of 3 • Crucial – co-ordination between all agencies working with environmental issues to include – environmental health, tenancy enforcement (poss. evictions), community action / clean-ups, etc. • A request was made to all residents to get involved in looking afer the area and linking in with the wardens.
6.0 Housing Issues
6.1 Update on Leeds East Homes Activity – supplied by Steve Vowles
clearance areas - ongoing negotiations with remaining occupants of Oak Trees site - Low Gipton Crescent, sale going through LCC Legal Services, will include some shared ownership. All residents of Gipton renewal area will be written to.
caretaking review - agreed with caretakers in principle. responsive mobile caretaking teams will be created in each area - Tenancy Support Officers in each grouping of multi storey flats (MSF) - 2 mobile out of hours security patrols floor walk all communal areas each night - enhanced CCTV will be provided at all MSF sites.
sheltered wardens - staff will transfer from Department of Neighbourhoods and Housing to Leeds East Homes from 1st Feb. - We will look to extend floating support to customers who are eligible and thereby employ more wardens to provide support in the community
closure of Gipton office - was relatively under used and cannot be staffed effectively, residents were consulted and a small South Housing minority were against closure - local residents groups and elected members supported closure as long as services were improved.
7.0 Questions from the Floor
7.1 Caretakers – mobile service; not resident any more. Security – will be covered by City Services; complaint about a call to security services who took more than 1 ½ hours to arrive – Steve to take on board.
7.2 Services for vulnerable people – perception that they have been reduced i.e. rent no longer collected personally. New alternatives include – giro, post office, telephone, direct debit, etc. Tenancy Support Officers may be made more available (Each supporting ab. 300 residents) Older people may find it more difficult to use modern payment methods. Difficulty of using public transport mentioned. Central housing office, serving both South and North Gipton, still in the broader regeneration plans. Reasons for change – offices attact (guns & axes).
7.3 What is the future for LEH – Leeds City Council will have to be party to that decision. The review started in October, led the government to conclude that Leeds had too many ALMO’s. Discussions, still ongoing. Generally – at present ALMO’s can’t build. It is hoped that in future it may change. If so, LEH would like to build some bungalows. 7.4 What are the plans for knocked down houses on Brander Rd.? No plans so far; it is not part of EASEL 7.5 Low Gipton Crescent – initially low cost home ownership. It is currently being finalised. North Country Homes involved. Written explanation will follow when legal crocess completed. Shared ownership suggested. 2 of 3
10.0 Any Other Business
10.1 There was no other business
11.0 Date of next meeting
11.1 8.3.06 at Wykebeck Valley Primary School, at 7.00 p.m. Main theme – Community safety and Streetscene.
3 of 3 Inner East Leeds Area Committee Harehills Consultative Forum Wednesday 30.11.05
Present:
Councillor Javaid Akhtar Chair Sandra Fowler Area Management Team Trudie Canavan LCC Community Safety Graham Moore Phoenix Residents & Tenants Mike Cox Streetscene Jane Halladay Groundwork Leeds Steve Vowles Leeds East Homes Pete Turner Celebrating Harehills David Foster People in Action (Leeds) Cllr Roger Harington Annalyn Bhanji Resident Richard Norton Archway Victoria Sinclair Womens Health Matters Jane Weston Resourcing the Community Michelle Anderson Harehills Neighbourhood Renewal Fathema Khatun Resourcing the Community Marzieh Berenjlaw Education Leeds Andrew Tear Residents Network Aqila Choudhry People in Action (Leeds) PC Darren Mortimer WYP Chapeltown NPT Cllr Alan Taylor Ralph Pryke Resident Edward Walker Resident M F Sadiq Resident Jamil Khan Resident/HYIP Jean Wilson Neighbourhood Learning Project Afzal Choudhry Harehills Agency Partnership
Apologies: Steve Milner, Strategic Projects, Seacroft Hospital Sandy Varley, LCC Youth Service Christina Cambridge – Resourcing the Community Nadine Sargent – CASAC Patrick Holmes – ASBU Phil Jackson Inspector Archer Inner East Leeds Area Committee
Harehills Consultation Forum Meeting of 30th November 2005
Notes of Meeting
♦ Actions and conclusions from the last meeting ♦ Harehills Tasking Update ♦ Domestic Violence Sub Group - Update Agenda Items ♦ Streetscene ♦ Questions from the Floor ♦ Any Other Business Actions and matters arising from the last meeting Agreed Action No new actions. All included on the agenda
Matters Arising from previous minutes
EASEL: update requested by Graham Moore and what the timetable would be from Spring 2006. Cllr Taylor confirmed that a decision was expected from Executive Board on 14th December and that the outcome would be announced at the next Gipton Forum which is scheduled to take place the same evening
Harehills Tasking Meeting Update
• Paper circulated outlining work carried out in October by the CAST team in the Gipton and Harehills Ward. • Concerns that these were ‘quick fixes’ • These are longer term issues. Residents want to have a sense of pride in the area • Needs for systems change so doesn’t take 2-3 years to establish • Plans being developed within the Area Delivery Plan through the tasking team and ‘Making it Real’
Domestic Violence Sub Group Update
• Paper circulated which Michelle Anderson confirmed was the groups first action plan • Outline given of membership of the group th • Next meeting scheduled for Monday 19 December at 2.30 pm at Sure Start, Chapeltown
Streetscene
Mike Cox attended for this item.
• Packs circulated and leaflet explained regarding the new recycling procedures • All calls regarding refuse now received at a Call Centre in East Leeds and logged • Discussion took place around the card being circulated about recycling and what should be included in future • Monthly collection of green bins not enough. No additional resources to increase collections but additional/bigger bins delivered if requested • Chair thanked Mike and the work of City Services
Questions from the floor
• How often should roadsweeping take place? Should be weekly but it has been reported that this is not so and is now being monitored. Problems do occur with gully cleaning due to parked cars
• Problems with locked gates at pedestrian SF to write on behalf access to recycling centre on Stanley Road of Chair MC to look into this at the request of the Chair
Any Other Business
Richard Norton: Archway had put in a bid for funding for a project dealing with community cohesion issues for activities for younger people based on sport, music and media. Outcome expected
Jamil Khan: Community event held on Saturday 26th November had been really well attended and received in the community
Jean Wilson: Had met with Fred Duff regarding the maintenance of Harehills Cemetary. Cllr Akhtar to follow up in writing
Afzal Choudry: felt that “one off” events and projects were not enough in the area. There needs to be longer and regular activities
Pete Turner: reported on the Celebrating Harehills event which had taken place during the summer. Agreed that the video of the event be presented at the next Forum meeting
RtC circulated their training programme
Michelle Anderson: Community Cohesion event to take place tomorrow at the Thackray Museum at 12.30 pm. All welcome
Jamil Khan: reported on the Aid for Life International funding raising event for the Kashmir earthquake victims which is to take place on 19th December. He also asked that the good work of Cllr Akhtar for the victims be recognised. Thanks were also recorded for the staff of St James Hospital who went out and helped in the area
Date and time of next meeting
Wednesday 15th March 2006 at 7.00 pm venue tbc. The theme of the meeting will be Young people.
Inner East Leeds Area Committee Killingbeck and Seacroft Consultative Forum Meeting of 13th December 2005
Notes of Meeting
• Killingbeck and Seacroft Tasking Team Update Agenda Items: • Community Safety Issues • Questions from the floor
Agreed Action Issues from last minutes
Minutes agreed as true record.
Matters Arising
There were no matters arising
Killingbeck and Seacroft Tasking Meetings
Steve Vowles, the Tasking Manager for Killingbeck and Seacroft gave a brief overview of the tasking teams: • A joint agency initiative which meets the 3rd Wednesday in each month • Because of the joint agency working the information sharing is quicker • The team is working on a crime and grime agenda in the area • In Seacroft South Alston Lane has been identified as a hotspot for crime. Information from residents now coming through. Street lighting in the area is about to be improve • In Seacroft North there is not as much recorded crime but problems have been identified with youths especially around the parade of shops on Boggart Hill • The CAST team are out and about in the area dealing with immediate environmental problems ie fly tipping and dumped rubbish • In Seacroft North and Boggart Hill the tasking team are looking at ginnels • Leeds East Homes are to target local tenants to tidy up gardens
Community Safety
Beverley Yearwood, the Community Safety Co-ordinator for East explained the work of the Divisional Community Safety Partnership and it’s sub groups of Anti Social Behaviour, Burglary, Hate Crime and Vehicle Crime and the actions that had been delivered:
• The Inglewoods Project has been successful and there have been no further burnt out cars • Operation Banrock on the 3rd, 4th & 5th October. A high visibility multi agency project in Seacroft. Outcomes tabled • Roadshow on 9th December highlighting personal safety was very successful • CCTV to be installed near the Black Shops early in the new year • Vehicle crimes in the area have been reduced by 67% • Theft of motor vehicles is also reduced • Theft from motor vehicles is rising in the area – hot spot at the 1 moment is Tescos car part • Target hardening to reduce burglaries is taking place
Concerns raised about fires in empty properties in the area. SV confirmed that the Arson Task Force were also aware and were in discussion with Leeds East Homes regarding the best way forward.
Patrick Holmes, the manager of the ASBU in the area then outlined the work they were involved in:
• 60 live cases in the area on-going at the moment • Problems with gangs of youths • Need for parents to be involved • Youth Service bus moving around the area and targeting young people where trends of anti social behaviour are, but experiencing problems with the young people whilst waiting for the bus to arrive • Prison - No Way Me! Project about life in prison are currently working in the area
Mrs Aljoufi then raised some personal problems she and her family were experiencing. Patrick Holmes explained that Mrs Aljoufi’s complaints were being dealt with by his team and the Police through the proper channels and it was not appropriate to go into detail in this forum.
A discussion then followed about racism and hate crime in the area. BY confirmed that these issues were being looked into by the Hate Crime Panel and actions were being scrutinised in relation to hate crime which has been on the increase since July 2005. PC Cassidy confirmed that a number of arrests had been made locally over the last few weeks because of race hate incidents.
2 Questions from the floor
• During the Banrock operations is the Department of Works and Pensions Involved? The DVLA, Police, Victim Support, Racial Harassment, Parks & Countryside, Environmental Health, Wardens and LEH are all involved. Maybe including Dept of Works and Pensions is a way forward.
• What effect in the area does the Banrock operation have? Banrock is a concentrated day hit on the area but it also gives the Police a bigger picture with the knock on effects
• What is happening in relation to the Proceeds of Crime Act? The Act was explained for members of the forum. The Act is still in its infancy
• What work is done with young people after an ASBO has been served? Positive Actions for Young People (PAYP) are involved in the area as well as the H8tus Project. PC Cassidy reported that a letter from the ALMO to the parents of the young person involved outlining problems has the most impact
Any Other Business
The demolition of houses in South Parkway was discussed and concerns were raised by the traders of the Black Shops who were experiencing problems already and were worried about the longer term implications for their businesses.
SV agreed to look into this and feed back directly to the shop holders and Ward Members.
Cllr Selby then closed the meeting and wished everyone seasons greetings
Next Meetings 14th February 2006 7.00pm and Agenda Items: Any additional agenda items – to Sandra on 214 3495
Present: Cllr Davey & Cllr Selby (Chairs), PC2009 Banks & PC1042 Cassidy (Killingbeck Police), Barbara Ackroyd (Resident), Hazel Perrott (Resident), Andrew Rooke (Sanctuary Housing), Konkab Aljoufi (Resident), Sharon Stead, Philip Stead , Barry Ripley & Andrew Brook (Trotters Butchers), Jack Green (Resident), Rev Heather Jamieson (St Richard’s Church), Maureen Park (Early Years Service), Sheila Kendrick (Resident), Patrick Holmes (ASBU), Steve Vowles (Leeds East Homes), Beverley Yearwood (Safer Leeds), Sandra Fowler (East Leeds Area Management)
Apologies: Derek Barker, Jane Halladay (Groundwork), Darren Brady & Garvin Noel (Neighbourbood Wardens), Stuart Smith (Boggart Hill Action Group), Mike Cox 3 (Streetscene), Dorothy Farrell, Mr Paler, Christine Davies, Cllr Hyde
4 Richmond Hill Open Forum Meeting Monday 5 December 2005 Richmond Hill Primary School, Clark Crescent, Leeds 9
Notes of Meeting Agenda Items :
1. Welcome 2. Apologies for Absence 3. Feedback from Last Forum Meeting 4. Area Committee Report 5. Tasking Team Report 6. Partner Contribution 7. Osmondthorpe Play Area Update 8. Friends of East End Park 9. Tracking Survey 10. Questions from the Floor 11. Date of next meeting
Attendance Sheet Attached
1. Cllr Brett welcomed everyone to the meeting
2. Apologies for absence were noted (as per attached sheet)
3. Feedback from Last Forum Meeting
Pedestrian Crossing on Easy Road – discussion had taken place with Highways Dept but unfortunately a positive outcome not been reached. Fewston Avenue Railway Bridge – discussions with British Transport Police resulted in agreement that the bridge is unsafe. Work will be carried out but no indication of timescale involved.
4. Area Committee Report
Cllr Brett had produced a report of the Inner East Area Committee meeting on 12 October 2005 which he distributed to the Forum (attached). He advised that the next Meeting would be held on 7 December and extended an open invitation for residents to attend and raise any issues/concerns they had. These would be addressed at the start of the Area Committee Meeting.
5. Tasking Team Report Unfortunately Jack Benson was unable to give the updated Tasking Team Geoff Holloran was however able to provide feedback on the following issues:
Bollard Replacement Scheme on East Park Drive Rationale behind work commencing in the Glensdales and surrounding area The situation with the shop on Glensdale Terrace Road re-surfacing Bin-yard refurbishment
Residents from the Cross-Green area did raise concerns about the lack of improvements being seen in their area.
Residents believe that cosmetic improvements are merely just that and would like to see longer-term sustainable improvements.
6. Partner Contribution
Insp. Dick Jones attended on behalf of Killingbeck Police. He advised that he is Head of Neighbourhood Policing for Inner East Area and provided the background to Neighbourhood Policing.
He took questions from the floor regarding the following issues:
Parking and speeding enforcement PCSO powers in relation to recent “shooting” incident in the Rookwoods Domestic violence The viability of CCTV cameras and the evidence they provide* Feedback and communication with victims of crime Reporting crime – emergency (999) v. non-emergency (0845 606066)
*Cllr Brett agreed to look into the “down” time of CCTV cameras in the area and provide feedback at the next meeting. In response to the concerns raised regarding street-lighting in the vicinity of the cameras he advised that Leeds CC will be replacing all street-lights (from yellow to white lights) within the next 4 years – he and his colleagues will be lobbying strongly for this area to be the first to have the changes implemented.
Insp Jones said he would be available at the end of the meeting to take questions on an individual basis.
7. Osmondthorpe Play Area Update
Sylvia Fisher & Sam McVeigh (OTRA) gave a presentation on behalf of OFZ (Ossie Fun Zone Group). Damien Dawtry (Neighbourhood Learning) and The Ridings were providing support to this project. The children have put together an action plan and are now applying for and securing funding. Funding for a feasibility study needs to be secured and proposals for this are being put together for consideration by re’new. The Group had identified areas of land but for differing reasons land had still not been secured.
8. Friends of East End Park
Cllr Hollingsworth and Stephen Sadler provided an update report on FoEEP since the inaugural meeting in October. Various activities had taken place already including the planting of 9,000 (not 6,500 as originally thought) bulbs in conjunction with local schools. Future events have been planned for next year to include a Fun Event for young people on 23 February (details can be obtained from SS) and 2 concerts in the summer (dates now confirmed to be Sunday 18 June and Sunday 30 July). Funding is being applied for the proposed improvement to :
Bowling Club Pavilion Benches Litter Bins Higher grade facilities for tennis courts 5-a-side football pitch
A question from the floor was raised about toilet facilities in the park and if new facilities are not installed the possibility of use facilities at the bowling pavilion. SS said that they were looking at the provision of toilet facilities.
Cllr Brett asked the Forum to note that there is no truth in the rumours that next year’s Bonfire and fireworks display is being cancelled.
9. Tracking Survey - £50 ASDA Voucher
Sue Wylie gave a brief report of the results of the recent tracking survey and advised that details could be found in the latest edition of the to’gether Residents Newsletter. Every person who returned their questionnaire was entered into a prize draw. Cllr Brett drew the winner who was John Barlow (Member No. 32). Anyone who had not already done so was invited to sign up to the Network.
Prior to the next Agenda Item Cllr Brett introduced Donna Wood from Hi8us and Brian Mitchell of the Local History Group who both gave brief details of their projects and asked for help and support from the local community. Ann Landale, Secretary of a local Road Safety Awareness Campaign gave out details of a free course being offered via Park Lane College commencing in January.
10. Questions From the Floor
Cllr Brett invited questions from the floor. These included:
The demise of shop fronts on York Road (in light of recent article in YEP concerning funding for improvements to shops on Shaftesbury Parade) Despite residents objections the letting of local property to Gilbert Deya Ministries (Cllr Brett to investigate and report back at next meeting) Concerns regarding the exterior of The Slip Inn (letter sent to Punch Taverns) ALMO strategy of 5 weeks turn-round from letting of property to tenant being able to move not been maintained Priority lettings policy (Cllr Brett to discuss with resident and investigate) Neighbourhood Management - Halton Moor (Natalie Stone) comparisons with East End Park and Cross Green
11. Date of Next Meeting – 6.00pm on 6 February 2006 at St Phillips Church Hall, Osmondthorpe Lane
Cllr. Brett thanked everyone for attending particularly at this time of year and said that he appreciated that this Forum was always well attended in comparison with other Forums being held in East Leeds. He wished everyone a safe and happy festive season.
Cllr Brett and his colleagues were available after the meeting for residents to talk through individual issues. Richmond Hill Open Forum Meeting Monday 05 December 2005 Richmond Hill Primary School, Clark Crescent, Leeds 9
Attendance List
Cllr Richard Brett – Chair Ward Member Cllr David Hollingsworth Ward Member Cllr Ralph Pryke Ward Member Jean Seddon Resident Billy Lindsay Resident Rizwana Rashid Area Management Team Amy Seaward re’new Geoff Holloran re’new Sue Wylie - Notes re’new Keith Brown Resident Gordon Goddard Resident Anne Waite Neighbourhood Warden Barry Smith Neighbourhood Warden Julie Jones EPCA Mary Brennan EPCA Ann Landale Resident B Mitchell Local History Group W Mills RHEA J Nettleton Resident C Wood Resident F Fieldsend RHEA Andy Patchett EPCA Olu Taiwo RHEEPCA Wendy Donaghey Resident Pearl McArdle Resident Deborah Riley Resident J J Khader EPCA Sylvia Fisher OTRA / Funzone Harry Collins HOPE (Chair) D Grundy Sure Start FOW Joanna Fox RHEA Shirley Moran Resident Stephen Morley Landlord in Cross Green Eric Stainthorpe Resident M Aylward Resident A Jackson Resident Stephen Sadler Friends of East End Park Joanne Binns Richmond Hill Drama Teens S Slinger Richmond Hill Drama Teens Stacey Jubb Richmond Hill Drama Teens Michelle Stoker Richmond Hill Drama Teens Sam Mc Veigh OTRA Damian Dawtry Neighbourhood Learning N Massey Resident K Nutman The Ridings HA Stephen Savage St Hildas Church Lorraine Butterfield Resident Insp Dick Jones Killingbeck Police Station Liz Zanre EPCA Dawn Godard EPCA Donna Wood HI8US North
Apologies
Glenn Maude Streetscene Services Georgie Spedding HOPE Anne Sherriff re’new Barry Griffiths Resident