County Offices Newland Lincoln LN1 1YL
24 August 2015
Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee
A meeting of the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee will be held on Wednesday, 2 September 2015 at 10.00 am in Dunholme Old School, 8 Market Rasen Road, Dunholme, Lincoln LN2 3QR for the transaction of the business set out on the attached Agenda.
Yours sincerely
Tony McArdle Chief Executive
Membership of the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee (11 Members of the Council)
Councillors C J T H Brewis (Chairman), L Wootten (Vice-Chairman), K J Clarke, D C Morgan, C R Oxby, S L W Palmer, N H Pepper, R J Phillips, Mrs A E Reynolds, Mrs N J Smith and R Wootten
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AGENDA WEDNESDAY, 2 SEPTEMBER 2015
Item Title Pages
1 Apologies for Absence
2 Declarations of Member's Interests
3 Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 July 2015 5 - 12
4 Lincolnshire Association of Local Councils - Update 13 - 16 (To receive a report by Trisha Carter, (Chief Executive Lincolnshire Association of Local Councils (LALC), which updates the Committee on LALC activities in respect of support for local councils, partnership working with Lincolnshire County Council and training provision during the period January 2015 – August 2015)
5 Emergency Planning - Exercise Barnes Wallis - Public 17 - 20 Engaging Exercise (To receive a report by David Powell, (Head of Emergency Planning), which provides the Committee with an overview of Exercise Barnes Wallis)
6 Libraries Update 21 - 28 (To receive a report by Tony McGinty, (Consultant in Public Health), which provides the Committee with an update on progress made since 3 February 2015 decisions on the future provision of libraries in Lincolnshire)
7 Update on the Trading Standards Service for Lincolnshire - 29 - 38 Finding solutions to ensure effective and efficient delivery (To receive a report by Sara Barry, (Safer Communities Manager), which provides the Committee with an update on the actions being taken to ensure an effective and efficient Trading Standards Service is being delivered in Lincolnshire)
8 Proposed Court Closures Consultation 39 - 124 (To receive a report by Mark Housley, (County Officer Public Protection), which asks the Committee to comment in respect of a response to the proposed court closure consultation)
9 Quarter 1 Performance - 1 April to 30 June 2015 To Follow (To receive a report by Jasmine Sodhi, (Performance and Equalities Manager), which provides key performance information relevant to the work of the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee) 10 Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee Work 125 - 128 Programme (To receive a report by Louise Tyers, (Scrutiny Officer), which enables the Committee to consider its work programme for the coming months)
Democratic Services Officer Contact Details
Name: Katrina Cope
Direct Dial 01522 552104
E Mail Address [email protected]
Please note: for more information about any of the following please contact the Democratic Services Officer responsible for servicing this meeting
Business of the meeting Any special arrangements Copies of reports
Contact details set out above.
All papers for council meetings are available on: www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/committeerecords 1
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 15 JULY 2015
PRESENT: COUNCILLOR C J T H BREWIS (CHAIRMAN)
Councillors L Wootten (Vice-Chairman), K J Clarke, C R Oxby, Mrs A E Reynolds, Mrs N J Smith, R Wootten and R A H McAuley.
Councillors: W J Aron, Mrs S Ransome, Mrs J M Renshaw, P A Robinson and Mrs S Woolley attended the meeting as observers.
Officers in attendance:-
Nick Borrill (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Katrina Cope (Team Leader Democratic and Civic Services), Simon Evans (Health Scrutiny Officer), Mark Housley (County Officer Public Protection), Tony McGinty (Consultant Public Health Children's), Pete Moore (Executive Director of Finance and Public Protection), Louise Egan (Programme Officer), Richard Greener (Development Manager, Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership) and Scott Watkinson (Programme Officer, Substance Misuse).
Mr Richard Nauyokas (Owner of Not So Bad) attended the meeting as an invited guest.
12 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S L W Palmer, N H Pepper and R J Phillips.
The Chief Executive reported that, having received notice under Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups Regulations 1990), that Councillor R A McAuley had been appointed as a replacement member on the Committee in place of Councillor S L W Palmer for this meeting only.
The Chairman advised that he would be sending Councillor Palmer a letter wishing him well on behalf the Committee.
The Chairman also advised that Item 5 on the Agenda, 'Heritage and Archives Transformation Projects' had been deferred to a future meeting, as it had not been possible to finalise the report in readiness for the meeting.
13 DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
No declarations of Councillors' interests were declared at this stage of proceedings. 2 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 15 JULY 2015
14 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3 JUNE 2015
Some Councillors felt that the discussion with regard to the Libraries Update Report had not reflected the feel of the meeting, as some Councillors had expressed some differing views.
RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting held on the 3 June 2015, be signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to two typographical errors being made on pages 8 and 11, and that an additional sentence should be added to minute number 5, to read "That some differing views had also been expressed at the meeting".
15 PRESENTATION BY "NOT ALL BAD"
The Scrutiny Committee received a verbal presentation from Richard Nauyokas (Owner of Not All Bad), which provided the Committee with background to the Not All Bad social enterprise, which offered motivational training, on or off site, to all members of society. The Committee noted that the training had been developed as a result of Mr Nauyokas's own life experiences and from his involvement in television productions known 'Lads Army' and 'Bad Lads Army'. Mr Nauyokas had set up his company in 2005, bringing in ex-military personnel to help him achieve his ambition to provide young adults with an insight into their own abilities and to provide them with the confidence needed to allow them to push themselves to achieve their full potential.
The training offered provided:-
Boot Camps – These were outdoor camps that provided motivational training based around a series of progressive mental, physical and self-awareness challenges to encourage participants to recognise their full potential and to be responsible their own actions and decisions; Motivational Sessions – These sessions were held in locations around the country at appropriate venues for the participants. The purpose of these sessions was to increase an individual's self-esteem, team spirit and self- confidence. It was noted that the sessions were tailored to the needs of the individuals; Offender Motivational Training – The Committee were advised that training was provided within secure units. The training was based on the participants during the day performing a number of tasks and activities focussing on teamwork and tolerance, the evening session, all said participants would then sleep in an appropriate room/gymnasium. The training was delivered over a three day period. Again, the programme was geared to instil and increase an individual's tolerance, self-discipline, team spirit, self-esteem and self- confidence, which would help participants with their integration back in the community; Offender Workshops – These were one day motivational workshops held within units. Each day was designed to meet the needs of the individual(s) 3 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 15 JULY 2015
through planning and consultation with the establishment's management. The workshops provided individuals with problem solving tasks, discussion debates and mental challenges; Teambuilding – It was noted that this was a course which was encouraged teams to bond; and Workshops – These were one day workshops which were held at locations appropriate to the participants, mainly making use of village halls, schools, church halls etc. The workshop was aimed at providing participants with increased team/community spirit; self-discipline, tolerance, self-worth and confidence. The Committee were advised about a series of success stories, which had resulted young people benefitting from the 'Not So Bad' training. It was highlighted that in instances when conducting any training, it was apparent that a particular individual required more specialist help; the team would sign-post the individual to the necessary organisation/person to enable them to receive the help and advice they needed.
The Committee were also advised that Mr Nauyokas was also involved in the running of the Grantham Youth Club. This had proven to be a challenge at first, but now at New Beacon Road, the young people had set up their own committee, which decided what the needs of the young people were and what they wanted to do with their youth club. Some of the youngsters had proven to be problematic, and as a result, three had been banned from attending at the moment, as they had not followed the rules and regulations of the Youth Club.
During discussion, the Committee raised the following issues:-
Whether a form of National Service as undertaken by other countries such as Sweden and Finland was something that might help young people. The Committee were advised that some work had been done with the National Citizenship Service, Mr Nauyokas felt that such a scheme would help prevent so many young people being locked up unnecessarily; Whether Schools had been involved, or taken up training. It was reported that there had been limited working with schools, as most schools did not have enough money in their budget to undertake such training. However he was undertaking a day training at the William Robson School Grantham before the end of term for pupils not able to go on the arranged school trips; Some members felt that these types of courses were invaluable for young people and enquired whether outward bound courses had been considered as an option. Mr Nauyokas advised that he would consider running an outward bound course, as long as the participants completed a three day motivational course prior to an outward bound course, to ensure that he was aware of the makeup of all the participants; The ideal age range for young people to undertake such training – The Committee were advised that the type of training offered was invaluable to children from the age of eight onwards, as long as follow up sessions were undertaken. The Committee were advised further that family boot camps were also what was needed on occasions, as long as the family engagement was 4 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 15 JULY 2015
positive, as a lot of work was needed to change the ideas and culture of some young people from what is the norm in their life to what it could be because of family values. It was important to help troubled young people earlier in their lives to help prevent exclusion from schools and spending time in prison; and Meeting the specialist needs of some young people – Any young person found to have Autism, or other conditions would be sign posted to a relevant specialist straight away, as the staff did not have the relevant training, but others within the team had knowledge of the appropriate person/organisation to contact in these instances. The Committee were advised that the team were involved with troubled families and that Boot Camps would be running throughout the summer. In conclusion, Mr Nauyokas enquired whether any financial support could be given to help to re-surface the carpark at New Beacon Road Youth Club, to provide a hard core play area for the young people. The local Councillor agreed to look into the request outside of the meeting.
The Chairman on behalf of the Committee thanked Mr Naukoyas for his very informative presentation.
16 HERITAGE AND ARCHIVES TRANSFORMATION PROJECTS
RESOLVED
That this item be deferred to a future meeting of the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee.
17 ROAD SAFETY PARTNERSHIP
Consideration was given to a report from the Executive Director of Finance and Public Protection, which asked the Committee to consider the work being undertaken by the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership.
The Development Manager of the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership (LRSP) in his presentation to the Committee made reference to the following issues:-
The makeup of the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership – It was noted that the partnership was the first of its kind in the country, collocating forensic collision investigators and casualty reduction officers from Lincolnshire Police with the County Council's accident investigation and road safety teams to form a multi-agency centralised road safety unit. It was noted that the Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue also have staff based at the LRSP. The LRSP Strategic Board comprising of members from Lincolnshire County Council, Lincolnshire Police, Police and Crime Commissioner, Highways England, Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue and East Midlands Ambulance Service; Objectives for the LRSP to be implemented before 2020, these were a 20% reduction in the number of killed or seriously injured road casualties from an annual average of 457 to 367; and have a 20% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured road casualties from an average annual 5 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 15 JULY 2015
number of 27 to no more than 22. figure 1 to 9 of the report presented provided the Committee with data relating to KSI casualties; The current priorities of the partnership, which were to be reviewed annually in response to ongoing collision trends were: young Drivers (17 - 24 years old), mature drivers (60+), two wheeled motor vehicles, pedal cyclists, pedestrians and business drivers for work; Interventions – It was reported that LRSP used information provided by the police through their stats 19 collision returns to prioritise and target education, enforcement and engineering interventions, figure 11 to 13 of the report presented provided full details of some of their current and proposed education, enforcement and engineering initiatives; and Sustaining the Service – The Committee were advised that the LRSP had a three year business plan for 2015 to 2018 that had identified potential funding streams and maximised the number of educational courses offered to offending motorists as an alternative to prosecution. It was reported that the current safety camera business plan used surplus income to fund the entire safety cameras operations. The new plan would also make provision to recover partner contributions to LRSP overheads so that they were no longer required from 2015/16. It was also reported that the new business model had made provision to replace all cameras from wet film to digital over a period of time. The Committee were also advised that an independent review of the LRSP had been undertaken, which had recommended a number of changes to the management structure which would simplify reporting lines and enable the LRSP to be a more dynamic and responsive organisation. It was highlighted that the initial outcomes of the review would be implemented by 1 October 2015 following staff consultation. During the presentation, the Committee raised the following points:-
Some members offered their support to the updating of speed cameras; Whether the 2 Fast, 2 Soon Programme would be visiting all schools. The Committee were advised that all secondary schools would be invited to participate; That the increase in the speed of trucks on the A15 had improved the driver experience on that road. It was noted that the government increased the speed limit for HGV's following a pilot, but against the advice of most road safety professionals. It was highlighted that the LRSP did not have local data to support/reject the proposal and that any subsequent review would have to be based on national evidence; What statistical information was like before the formation of the LRSP. It was reported that there were 104 fatal casualties in 1999, now that figure was down to 42, and that the seriously injured casualties was down from about 800 to the lowest figure of just under 300. There had been lots of lessons learnt over time and the LRSP had assisted in getting figures reduced; Insurance information and whether liaison was made with the police regarding slight damage. The Committee were advised that the partnership did not look at non-injury collisions as there was insufficient/unreliable supporting information to provide robust causation details; 6 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 15 JULY 2015
Whether data was readily available for each division. The Committee were advised that information was available for division and district; Speed Awareness Courses – It was highlighted that some people had to attend courses out of the area. Members were advised that this was being looked into and more courses would be made available within Lincolnshire; Criteria for Zebra Crossing – The Committee were advised that this was a divisional highways issue; Success of Community Speed Watch – It was reported that 105 communities had signed up to the community speed watch scheme 75 of which had opted for the vehicle activated signs. Some members commented on the effect of the reactive signs, some reference was made to the need to ensure that they were calibrated correctly; and Reference was also made to the need for a minimum driving requirement for older drivers (60 – 100). Some discussion was had which seem to conclude that there should be some sort of a re-test at a given point, but at the moment there was no legislation to enforce this. The Chairman extended his thanks to the Development Manager (LRSP) on behalf of the Committee for his informative presentation.
RESOLVED
That the report and presentation concerning the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership be noted.
18 JOINT AMBULANCE CONVEYANCE PROJECT - UPDATE
Consideration was given to a report from the Chief Fire Officer, which provided an update on the latest performance data regarding the Joint Ambulance Conveyance Project currently being trialled at Long Sutton, Woodhall Spa and Stamford.
The Deputy Chief Fire Officer attended the meeting, and guided members through the report making particular reference to:-
That the Joint Ambulance Conveyance Project (JACP) was a joint pilot project between Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue and the East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) aimed to improve the quality of service and outcomes for patients in Lincolnshire through the development of an innovative and complementary approach to ambulance provision in the County. The pilot built on the Lincolnshire Fire and Rescues existing co-responder scheme, run in partnership with EMAS and Lincolnshire Integrated Voluntary Emergency Services (LIVES), in which on-call retained firefighters from 21 stations already responded to medical emergencies, delivering first aid, providing oxygen etc. The JACP involved co-responders being mobilised to medical incidents in an ambulance vehicle. The main difference between current practice and the JACP was that LFR staff now have the capability of conveying a patient to hospital rather than having to wait at the scene until an EMAS ambulance arrived; 7 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 15 JULY 2015
The collaborative approach was more effective and delivered good value for money; It was highlighted that the reasons for selecting the pilot locations of Long Sutton, Stamford and Woodhall was that retained firefighters at these stations were already co-responding; and they had indicated their availability to undertake the pilot; and the locations supported EMAS priorities. Members noted that the pilot started in September 2014 for a 12 month period. On completion of the pilot the outcomes would be assessed, and a decision would then be taken on whether the scheme should continue, or be expanded to other areas of the county. It was highlighted that there had been national interest in the pilot project; It was reported that the evaluation process would use both qualitative and quantitative data, and that Skills for Justice had been commissioned by the Project Board to undertake research into the Social Value of the scheme, this would then be taken as part of the evaluation of the pilot; The Committee were advised that the three fire stations had attended 736 co- responder incidents and had transported 194 patients to hospital. The average time for attendance for the JACP ambulance was 10 minutes 35 seconds, with an average attendance time of EMAS clinician of 20 minutes 5 seconds; and Appendix A to the report provided the Committee with a breakdown of data relating to JACP Patients Transports to date. A short discussion ensued, from which the following comments were raised:-
What happened after the pilot finished and why the three fire stations were selected? Members were reminded that the three fire stations were selected because they were already co-responding and that the future of the pilot was dependent on the outcomes of the pilot being evaluated. The whole purpose of the pilot had been improve the quality of service and outcomes for patients in Lincolnshire; Inclusion of Mablethorpe – The Committee were advised that at the time of selection Mablethorpe did not co-respond; Where 999 calls were sent to. Members were advised that they were received by the EMAS control centre in Lincoln. Some Members felt that it would be useful to visit the said control centre at Cross O' Cliff Bracebridge Health, Lincoln; The cost of the Skills for Justice Work. The Committee were advised of the cost of the work which would be funded as part of the pilot. Members requested that a further update report should be presented to a future meeting of the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee. RESOLVED
1. That the report on the Joint Ambulance Conveyance Project Update presented be noted and that a further update on the pilot be presented to a future meeting of the Committee. 8 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 15 JULY 2015
2. That Officers look into arranging a visit to the EMAS Control Centre at Cross O' Cliff, Bracebridge Heath, Lincoln.
19 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
Consideration was given to a report from the Director responsible for Democratic Services, which enabled the Committee to consider its Work Programme for the coming year.
The Scrutiny Officer presented the report which had detailed at Appendix A, a copy of the current Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee Work Programme.
The Committee were reminded that the next meeting of the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee was due to be held at the Lincolnshire Association of Local Councils Offices, Dunholme, Lincoln on 2 September 2015.
RESOLVED
That the Work Programme presented be agreed subject to a further update relating to the Joint Ambulance Conveyance Project being added to a future agenda of the Committee.
20 CONSIDERATION OF EXEMPT INFORMATION
RESOLVED
That under Section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item, on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.
21 UPDATE ON SUBSTANCE MISUSE RE-COMMISSIONING PROJECT
Consideration was given to a report from the Executive Director of Community Wellbeing and Public Health, which invited the Committee to consider exempt information in relation to the Substance Misuse Re-commissioning Project.
The report was introduced by the Consultant in Public Health, and was jointly presented by two Programme Officers, who provided further detail to the Committee.
RESOLVED
That the exempt report presented be noted.
The meeting closed at 12.50 pm Policy and Scrutiny
Open Report on behalf of Trisha Carter, Chief Executive, Lincolnshire Association of Local Councils
Report to: Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee Date: 2 September 2015 Subject: Lincolnshire Association of Local Councils - Update KeyDecision decision? Reference: No Summary: This report updates the Committee on LALC activities in respect of support for local councils, partnership working with LCC and training provision during the period January 2015 – August 2015.
Actions Required: Members are invited to consider and comment on the report and to continue to endorse partnership working wherever possible within their local communities.
LALC would also like to record its appreciation for any continued support from the County Council towards its activities.
1. Background
The Association continues to work closely in partnership with the County Council, with a number of new initiatives in the process of development between the two bodies, together with other partner agencies as appropriate.
LCC, the Police and LALC are currently preparing a series of six seminars around the Prevent agenda – to be held at various locations throughout the county during 2015/2016. These events aim to inform councils and clerks of the Prevent strategy and how this links in with the need for safeguarding local communities.
These sessions will also incorporate the LCC/LALC Emergency Planning agenda, encouraging our parishes to prepare and maintain their own Emergency Plans, in order to be ready for any major event that might call on the provision of local resources to supplement county services as necessary in times of crisis.
In conjunction with the Lincolnshire Safeguarding Children Board, LALC is also currently assisting with arrangements for a seminar to be held in Gainsborough in October 2015, which will look at council and community facility safeguarding issues, informing councillors, their clerks, staff and volunteers with regard to best practice safeguarding policies and procedures, effective use of risk assessment tools, corporate responsibilities when hiring out venues, holding events etc, safer recruitment and when it is/is not appropriate or possible to carry out DBS checks.
2. Update
The LALC training agenda grows year on year, with demand for both established and new topics, and more attendees at events than in any previous years. We are now at the maximum level of sessions that can be effectively dealt with, given the resources at our disposal – both financially and in terms of staffing – and taking into account the other demands on our time.
Regrettably the biggest problem that we face is that those who need the training most are the ones who are most reluctant to attend. Councillors and clerks who are committed to transparent, accountable and effective management attend regularly and willingly, taking away examples of best practice to share with their colleagues and communities. We need greater attendance from the small minority of local councils where problems continue to arise due to poor administrative and procedural processes, where members and staff are resistant to progress and, as a result, the council fails to function as a cohesive unit.
The first part of the year saw a number of training events for clerks and councillors, covering the core topics of policy and procedures, finance and risk management, planning (effective responses to applications and preparation of neighbourhood plans) employment law, FOI and Data Protection guidance, and efficient management of burial grounds, community buildings and playgrounds. Attendance at all of these events is up on previous years. A new course on management of assets, leases and licences held in late June also proved extremely popular.
In addition we have run further events giving First Aid qualifications to clerks, councillors and council staff, and a number of IT courses on basic computer skills, more advanced ones on Word and Excel, and two courses on computerised accounting procedures and preparation of spreadsheets.
We have run two courses to date for the Certificate in Local Council Administration, with introduction of the new 2015 Portfolio from April onwards for all new candidates. This has necessitated a change in our training programme, as the new portfolio contains many additional requirements. A number of candidates who registered prior to April are still working on the old version of CiLCA, so for a year both systems have to run side by side until these candidates reach their cut-off dates, or submit their portfolios, whichever is the soonest. We have had a further three passes in the last month, with three more candidates currently awaiting their results, and another four about to submit their work for marking. CiLCA requires not only the training events themselves, but also the provision of a mentoring service throughout the preparation process.
Post-election, we delivered five introductory courses for new councillors in Welbourn, Market Rasen, Stamford, Kirton and Ingoldmells. Some attendees were entirely new to the council world, but a number of returning councillors also attended for an update on the basics. The combined number of attendees for these events was 173. The autumn schedule is equally challenging, covering not only our core topics, as above, but the commencement of delivery of the other specialist events as detailed on Page 1 of this report, and the addition of some extra courses to accommodate demand. 2015 has seen an unprecedented number of clerk changes, for various reasons. The two training days held so far this year have been very well attended, and bookings are coming in rapidly for the next one at beginning of November.
The number of day courses that we run for councillors have had to be increased, with a further three dates added to the calendar for October/November to accommodate the waiting list. We have also had a number of requests recently from councils for specialised, one-off events in their localities – whilst we do try and accommodate these wherever possible, they are dependent on the availability of staff.
3. Conclusion
We trust that members of the Committee will continue to be supportive of, and note the benefits of, the work being done by the Association, and our continued aim of encouraging and supporting the activities of our local (town and parish) councils.
The Association would like to place on record its thanks for the LCC’s continuation of financial support towards the training activities that take place, which is much appreciated and does ensure that we are able to maintain our current level of training for the local council sector and, where necessary, to call on the skills of outside training providers where this is required to cover the more specialist areas.
We are pleased that the County Council seeks actively to work much more closely with town and parish councils, and recognises their contribution to local governance, at a time when resources at a premium, and the parish/town sector is being asked to take on more responsibilities and devolved services.
4. Consultation
N/A
a) Policy Proofing Actions Required Not applicable.
5. Background Papers
No background papers within Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 were used in the preparation of this report.
This report was written by Trisha Carter, who can be contacted on 01673 866596 or [email protected].
Policy and Scrutiny
Open Report on behalf of Pete Moore, Executive Director of Finance and Public Protection
Report to: Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee Date: 2 September 2015 Emergency Planning – Exercise Barnes Wallis - Public Subject: Engaging Exercise KeyDecision decision? Reference: No Summary: Communities of Lincolnshire are at risk from a wide range of hazards, from severe flooding and human pandemics, to industrial and transport accidents. The resilience partnership we have formed (of which the County Council remains a key player) remains one of the most important in the county.
The value of the work of this partnership was well and truly proved during the largest test of responders in recent memory – the Tidal Surge of 2013, and the flooding in Boston in particular, which stretched us all to the maximum.
It also reminded us that the public rightly has high expectations of its local authorities. Indeed, how local councils work with and engage their local communities and voluntary organisations to ensure they are resilient and well prepared can make a fundamental difference to their locality in times of trouble.
To this end, the Local Resilience Forum (LRF), led by the County Council will run a public engaging exercise to demonstrate how local community and voluntary responses can be integrated with that of the emergency services.
Three communities – Anderby, Wyberton and ‘The Suttons’, will be testing the activation of their own community emergency plans, whilst the organised voluntary sector will practice their own response roles under the coordination of the County Council (lead responder) – throughout Exercise Barnes Wallis, a simulation of a wide area civil emergency on 12th November 2015.
The exercise will be used to refine our own procedures for working and communicating with local communities and the voluntary sector, whilst promoting the benefits of ‘community resilience’ to a wider audience.
Actions Required: Members are asked to:
1. Consider and comment on Exercise Barnes Wallis.
2. Accept the invitation to observe the exercise, and to receive a future report on any lessons learned. 1. Background
Government introduced the Localism Act in November 2011. The aim of the Act is to devolve more decision making powers from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. In addition to this the Local Government Association’s Localism Programme focuses on encouraging and engaging more with local community groups and the voluntary sector.
The Civil Contingencies Act allocated a number of statutory duties to ‘category 1 responders’ (includes all local authorities) to assess local risks, plan to respond to and recover from those risks, and to exercise and test those plans on a regular basis. The Act also gave local authorities responsibility for coordinating the response of the voluntary sector during civil emergencies.
Exercise Aim
The aim of Exercise Barnes Wallis is to demonstrate a community-led response to civil emergencies in Lincolnshire.
Exercise Objectives
The objectives of the Exercise are to:
- test the activation, deployment, integration and tasking & coordination of local community emergency planning and the organised voluntary sector (including ‘spontaneous volunteers’) in the response to civil emergencies in Lincolnshire.
- test the LRF’s ability to identify vulnerable persons through information sharing, collation, analysis, mapping and local knowledge/intelligence.
- collate and communicate that information to forward command locations in a secure and confidential manner (using Resilience Direct).
- test the coordinated provision of technical and/or humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people during civil emergencies in Lincolnshire.
- strengthen community resilience in Lincolnshire by delivering a public- engaging exercise and communication strategy.
Exercise Design
There are three community groups interested in validating their own Community Emergency plans - Wyberton (Boston), The Suttons (South Holland), and Anderby Creek Village (East Lindsey).
The overall command and control will be facilitated in the County Emergency Centre along with the appropriate command support structures. We will activate the LRF Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with British Red Cross who will help coordinate and organise the voluntary sector. The community groups in Boston and South Holland will test their plans via a Tabletop style exercise, facilitation of which will be provided by a member of the district council staff.
Anderby Avert (Anderby volunteer emergency response team) at Anderby Creek will carry out a field exercise, demonstrating a multi-agency Forward Command Post, forward deployment of the organised voluntary sector, integration of local community emergency planned response and ‘spontaneous volunteers’ to support a simulated evacuation operation.
There will be an opportunity for Elected Members to observe the evacuation process, engage with the Community Coordinator and discuss the role of spontaneous volunteers with an academic who is carrying out research into the use of volunteers - at Anderby on the morning of the exercise.
2. Conclusion
The ‘public-engaging’ exercise will be fully facilitated and lessons identified during the exercise play will be disseminated to the community groups to enable them to refine their plans. We will have proved the concept of a Forward Command Post (FCP) and the use of Resilience Direct (RD), a secure web-based platform to share situational awareness and mapping as part of the exercise. We will also have tested our lines of communication with not just the LRF partners but the wider communities as well through their engagement with the FCP coordinator.
3. Background Papers
No background papers within Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 were used in the preparation of this report.
This report was written by Sue Whitton, who can be contacted on 01522 582223 or [email protected].
Policy and Scrutiny
Open Report on behalf of Dr Tony Hill, Executive Director for Public Health & Community Wellbeing
Report to: Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee Date: 2 September 2015 Subject: Libraries Update KeyDecision decision? Reference: No Summary: The Council Executive decided on 3 February 2015 to adopt a new model of library provision for Lincolnshire and to secure that service by competitively tendering for a new library service supplier. The Executive also decided to enhance its statutory library service by developing community hubs with local community groups that include library provision.
Significant steps towards implementing these decisions have been taken, including the publication of a Contract Notice in April 2015; the agreement of a timetable for transfer of tier 3 libraries to community groups and a consultation with staff who are affected by the changes.
This paper summarises progress, including referring to challenges the Council has received to its decision and implementation, and their outcome.
Actions Required: To note the progress made since 3 February 2015 decisions on the future provision of libraries in Lincolnshire.
The Decisions to be implemented
On 3 February 2015 the Council's Executive took a series of decisions around the future of library services provision in Lincolnshire. The decisions were made at the end of a long period of development and consultation and in the light of a judicial review of an earlier decision.
The decisions included the adoption of a new model of library provision that fulfilled the Council's obligations under statute; the commissioning of a range of additional services including the development of community hubs and a determination to put the service to competition. The Main Elements of the Resulting Project
The decisions of 3 February generated the development of a project, overseen by an Officer Project Board and an Executive Member 'Sounding Board'. The project consists of three main work streams:
Preparation and execution of a competitive tendering process for a new supplier of library services; Support to community groups to develop community hubs; Changes to the staffing and operation of the existing Library Service to accommodate the new model and new budget for the service.
The project has been initiated in an environment of challenge. The Council was made aware of an application to the Secretary of State (SoS) for Culture, Media and Sport to intervene in the Council's decision. The SoS has powers to require a local inquiry into the Council's delivery of its duty under libraries legislation and to subsequently require changes in Council services if minded to do so.
In the case of this application, the SoS was not minded to require an inquiry, determining that the new model adopted by the Council Executive was very likely legal. Subsequently the SoS left a window for further submissions and received a range of additional information before his deadline of 24 April 2015. This additional information is currently being considered. At this point no further information has been requested from the Council and an interim response has advised that a final decision can be expected in September 2015.
The February 2015 decision was subject to a judicial review (JR) application and this was heard in the High Court during July 2015. Three grounds for JR were considered and all three were dismissed by the Court in a decision announced on the 28 July 2015.
Although the decision is known the judgment of the court setting out the reasons for that decision is not expected to be handed down and thereby become public until the week commencing 24 August 2015, after this report was finalised.
Preparation for Competitive Tender
On 4 February 2015 the Prior Information Notice (PIN) for Library Services was published, together with an invitation to attend a supplier market engagement event. Nine suppliers attended the engagement event which was held in Lincoln during March.
The Contract Notice and Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) were issued on 16 April 2015. Six initial applications were received and following assessment a shortlist of three bidders were taken forward to the next stage of the process. All three bidders submitted initial tenders on 14 August 2015. A period of dialogue with these bidders is underway and final costed proposals will follow on 19 October 2015. The procurement remains on track for a decision on contract award to be presented to Executive, following pre-scrutiny, in December 2015 for a contract start date of April 2016.
Support to Community Hub Development
The community hub offer being made to 40 communities across the county who currently qualify as a Tier 3 Library community – i.e. small community provision (over 550 households) minimum opening hours six hours per week, consists of:
£5,167 per annum revenue grant for four years; Up to £15,000 one-off capital grant funds; A ten year lease on Lincolnshire County Council owned properties including four years at peppercorn rent (£1 per annum): Ongoing training and support for volunteers : Book supply by Lincolnshire County Council: Fully managed ICT service: Access to a team of Community Advisors who will support and advise on future planning and sustainability.
Since the Council's decision to progress was made in February 2015, all 40 communities have been written to asking them to notify us of their intention to proceed with the community hub model. The response has been generally positive with only three communities indicating there is no live hub initiative and two communities have not responded. For a community that has no intention of implementing the hub model then mobile library provision will be made. Also, if a community has not formally notified the council of its intention by 31 July 2015, then the council will instigate a mobile service in that community.
A four cohort approach has been developed to the implementation of the community hub model to allow community groups more flexibility and allow the Council to manage demand for support. These cohorts are proceeding as:
Cohort one went live in July Cohort two went live in August Cohort three going live in September Cohort four going live after October (this cohort is made up of communities where an existing tier 3 service is not in place)
A more detailed description of this timetable and the community hubs in each cohort is described in Appendix A. Those sites without an active community group engaged will now be replaced with a mobile stop from October 2015.
Service Changes
Internally, a 45 day consultation with all of the 57 staff affected by the transfer of libraries to community hubs is now complete. Colleagues have already started leaving the Council's employment and all staff in this cohort will depart by the end of September 2015. A further consultation with temporary rea managers is now complete and they will be leaving the council at the end of October 2015.
A Library and Heritage Service senior management restructure consultation is underway, the key driver of these proposals being the need to disentangle the joint management structure to enable the outsourcing of Library Services should a contract award be made in December 2015.
3. Conclusion
The 3 February decisions of the Executive of the Council are being implemented in line with its requirements, and issues and challenges to the successful delivery of the new model are being addressed as they present.
At present, the project is on course to deliver the new model of provision in co- operation with a range of partners by April 2016. The project team will bring regular updates to the committee throughout the year.
4. Consultation
None required.
a) Policy Proofing Actions Required Not applicable. 5. Appendices
Appendix A Community Hub Implementation Phasings
6. Background Papers
No background papers within Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 were used in the preparation of this report.
This report was written by Tony McGinty, who can be contacted on 01522 524229 or [email protected] APPENDIX A
Community Hub Implementation Phasings at 03 August 2015
Issue of Closure Last Day of LCC District Name Go Live Phase Notice Operation Go lIve Date Staff Leave Date Wainfleet, East Lindsey Phase one 09/05/2015 06/06/2015 Spring 2016 06/06/15 (Relief Staff) Sutton on Sea, East Lindsey Phase One 22/06/2015 18/06/2015 27/07/2015 18/7/15 (relief staff) Birchwood, City of Lincoln and 17/08/2015 Ermine Ermine, City of and 18/08/2015 Lincoln Phase One 29/06/2015 27-Jul Birchwood 30/9/15 (moving to Boutham over summer) Caistor, West Lindsey Phase One 29/06/2015 27-Jul 03/08/2015 01/09/15 (authorised leave whilst site is closed) Scotter, West Lindsey Phase Two 10/07/2015 07/08/2015 20/08/2015 3/8/15 (relief staff) Bracebridge Heath, North Kesteven Phase Two 13/07/2015 08/08/2015 24/08/2015 17/9/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed Crowland, South Holland Phase Two 08/08/2015 05/09/2015 TBC 05/09/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed Welton, West Lindsey Phase Two 03/08/2015 27/08/2015 TBC 30/09/2015 Pinchbeck, South Holland Phase Two 03/08/2015 28/08/2015 TBC 30/9/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed Bracebridge, City of Lincoln Phase Two 01/08/2015 29/08/2015 TBC 9/9/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed Ruskington, North Kesteven Phase Two 04/08/2015 29/08/2015 07/09/2015 05/09/2015
Boultham, Lincoln Phase Three 12/08/2015 09/09/2015 23/09/2015 30/09/2015
Burgh -Le-Marsh, East Lindsey Phase Three 10/08/2015 07/09/2015 TBC 30/9/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed Metheringham, North Kesteven Phase Two 20/07/2015 15/08/2015 TBC 08/09/2015 authorised leave whilst site is closed Kirton, Boston Borough Phase Three 15/08/2015 12/09/2015 TBC 14/9/15 (relief staff)
Cherry Willingham Phase Three 17/08/2015 14/09/2015 TBC 30/9/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed Nettleham Phase Three 27/08/2015 21/09/2015 TBC 30/9/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed North Hykeham, North Kesteven Phase Three 27/08/2015 21/09/2015 TBC 30/09/2015 Branston, North Kesteven Phase Three 28/08/2015 25/09/2015 TBC 30/915 authorised leave whilst site is closed Keelby, West Lindsey Phase Three 28/08/2015 26/09/2015 TBC 30/9/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed Alford, East Lindsey Phase Three 05/09/2015 29/09/2015 TBC 30/9/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed Donington, South Holland Phase Three 02/09/2015 30/09/2015 TBC 30/09/2015 Holbeach, South Holland Phase Three 02/09/2015 30/09/2015 TBC 30/9/15 authorised leave whilst site is closed Spilsby, East Lindsey Boultham, City of Lincoln Phase Three 02/09/2015 30/09/2015 TBC 17/8/15 (relief staff) Barrowby, South Phase 4 - Post N/A - no current N/A - no current Kesteven September provision provision TBC Heckington, North Phase 4 - Post N/A - no current N/A - no current Kesteven September provision provision TBC Ingoldmells, East Phase 4 - Post N/A - no current N/A - no current Lindsey September provision provision TBC Navenby, North Phase 4 - Post N/A - no current N/A - no current Kesteven September provision provision TBC Sutton Bridge, Phase 4 - Post N/A - no current N/A - no current South Holland September provision provision TBC Swineshead, Phase 4 - Post N/A - no current N/A - no current Boston Borough September provision provision TBC Wragby, East Lindsey Phase 1 - July TBC
Policy and Scrutiny
Open Report on behalf of Pete Moore, Executive Director of Finance and Public Protection
Report to: Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee 2 September 2015 Date: Update on the Trading Standards Service for Subject: Lincolnshire - Finding solutions to ensure effective and efficient delivery KeyDecision decision? Reference: No Summary: This report provides an update on how the Trading Standards Service is managing following a 50% reduction in resources over the last 4 years. It details the priority setting process that has been adopted and highlights the priorities set for 2015-16. It also discusses a project that is underway to look at future delivery models for the service.
Actions Required: Members are invited to consider and comment on the actions taken to ensure an effective and efficient Trading Standards Service is delivered in Lincolnshire.
1. Background
1.1 Finances
In 2010/11 the Lincolnshire County Council's Trading Standards Service made 40% budget savings and became part of the Safer Communities Service which also covers Community Safety commissioning and coordination. A further 15% has been saved in 2015/16 of which 5% is to be derived from income generation. The Service is now delivered by 26.5 fte officers and supported by 3.5 business support officers (2010/11 61 fte supported by 11.5 fte admin). The full cost of the service is now £1.99 per her head of the population, per year. This scale of resource reduction has required a rethink on what the service does and how it is delivered.
1.2 Priority Setting
The statutory responsibilities of a local trading standards service are contained within over 250 pieces of legislation; this has not been reduced despite the government's 2 out 1 in policy on new legislation. New duties have been placed on the service such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Single Use Carrier Bag Charges 2015. Therefore the service has had to adopt a strict priority setting process to ensure it directs the current resources at issues where most harm is being experienced and impact can be achieved.
The priority setting process utilises an Intelligence Operating Model that has been developed and adopted nationally by Trading Standards. The process is conducted at a national, regional and local level to ensure no enforcement gaps are left and criminals operating across local boundaries are tackled.
The process is shown in the diagram below.
In addition to the IOM process, the duties and expectations to ensure the food chain is safe, animal welfare is maintained and market surveillance is carried out have to be factored in when setting priorities and determining resource use.
1.3 Priorities for 2015-16
Following the process above in 2015-16 the following priority areas have been agreed. These all fit within the Protecting the Public Commissioning strand.
Reducing the availability of counterfeit Alcohol and Cigarettes - In the UK, the illegal trade of alcohol and tobacco undermines efforts to reduce the number of people smoking and drinking. These products are uncontrolled and can be available to children. Illegal trade is often part of organised criminal activity and is linked to other illegal trade. Smuggling of these goods also represents a significant risk to revenues.
Tackling the sale of unsafe goods across Lincolnshire - As larger numbers of goods enter the European market and may not conform to safety requirements, we aim to increase the number of unsafe products removed from the market in Lincolnshire and reduce the risk of physical harm to the end-user. Tackling Doorstep Crime and Scams - We aim to promote community wellbeing and resilience by assisting elderly and vulnerable consumers to feel safer in their own homes and live longer through not becoming victims of doorstep crime. We also support economic growth especially in small businesses, by tackling rogue trading whilst helping them to comply with the law.
Ensuring Business Compliance – focus on food and livestock feed production, manufacturing, wholesale and retail, farmed Animals, Weights & Measures, supporting and developing business (including business advice and income generation).
1.4 Responding to Consumers
Nationally all consumers requiring advice and assistance are now directed to the Citizens Advice Consumer Service. This is a specialist government funded service providing advice by telephone, e-mail and web. It is also the main reporting portal for Trading Standards issues.
The Consumer Service advises consumers on how to deal with problems with goods and services, referring more complex and criminal matters through to local trading standards services to either act immediately or retain to inform the intelligence picture.
In 2009-10 the service received 5344 complaint referrals (this excludes animal health matters which were an additional 2057) after an initial assessment 31% were closed and not actively pursued.
In 2014-15 4752 consumer referrals were received of which 71% were not actively considered. Our referral handling process attempts to ensure that vulnerable victims are identified and assisted. The content of the referrals is analysed and used to inform our press and social media activity, to inform and warn consumers so they are able to better protect themselves. The information is also analysed to inform emerging and future priorities. Reactive enforcement activity is managed through a monthly tasking process. Issues are scored using the matrix attached as Appendix A.
1.5 Non Prioritised Activity
To reflect the reduced resource as well as scaling back our direct support to consumers we have reduced activity in: Business Advice – we are now only able to offer up to 1 hour's free advice to businesses and this is mainly providing signposting to our comprehensive advice pages. For businesses that trade outside Lincolnshire we are able to provide assured advice through the Primary Authority scheme. This is on a cost recovery basis.
Consumer Education – we are not able to respond to requests for talks to organisations such as WI and schools. We do have specific information programmes such as Operation Repeat which is part of our Doorstep Crime strategy
Inspection and Audit Programme – this has been scaled back and now targets only those highest risk premises which could pose a danger to the food chain or could have a major impact on the Lincolnshire economy. In 2009/10 3120 programmed visits were made. In 14/15 this has reduced to 1426 and of those 436 was carried out due to external funding provided by the Food Standards Agency.
Sampling Programme – This is a market surveillance programme targeted at food and consumer goods/services. Consumers are not able to detect issues themselves that relate to issues such as horsemeat, carcinogenic additives, allergens such as nut contamination and product safety issues such as electrical and toy safety. In 2009/10 768 samples were procured and tested. In 14/15 this reduced to 329. Issues are still being found with meat species, electrical chargers.
1.6 Risk and Assurance
With the staffing loss in 2011 much expertise and knowledge left the service, training and up-skilling has been achieved with the remaining staff, though there remains a risk with the generalist approach that has had to be adopted that the more technical issues are missed or mistakes made The withdrawal from proactive business advice generates a risk that businesses in Lincolnshire may breach legislation with financial, reputational and public safety consequences. The ability to respond to a major incident such as a large scale food contamination or animal disease outbreak will require input from other areas of LCC or the need to call in support from neighbouring counties. Managing consumer and customer expectations is proving a challenge.
1.7 Alternative Delivery Structures
Nationally as a non- ringed fenced or non-protected service Trading Standards has often taken the quickest and largest impact of funding reductions and many services feel they are now at a minimum, safe, viable level. In December last year I was approached by the Heads of Service for Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Trading Standards Service and it was agreed to explore the possibility of bringing the services together as one.
A project is currently underway, its aim is to enable the three participating authorities to have the necessary information and analysis to take evidence based decisions on whether they wish to join together in a new delivery model for the Trading Standards Service. The objectives of the project are to:
further explore in more detail the options for the delivery of Trading Standards via a single service across Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire;
make recommendations to the respective County Councils with regard to the preferred option(s) for the delivery of Trading Standards via a single service across Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire; and
for each County Council to consider the recommendations and indicate whether it wishes to proceed, and if so on what basis. Success factors for a new delivery model would be:
Quality standards continue to be met. That key performance indicators for each local authority will remain the same or improve. There continues to be a focus on prevention and intelligence led enforcement. A more resilient service that is better able to meet community needs. That customer facing services are preserved and preferably enhanced. A culture that optimises the collective skills and knowledge base and learns from the best. Ability to make cashable budgetary savings
The business appraisal process is due to complete in September the results will be brought back for scrutiny in the near future. 1.8 National Reviews It has been announced recently that there will be three separate national reviews of the effectiveness of Trading Standards services:
National Audit Office
The NAO are due to commence a review of the consumer landscape following the changes made in 2011. The changes included the removal of the Office of Fair Trading and the greater expectation on local TS services to tackle national level infringements. As yet the full scope of the review is undefined. Work is due to start in the autumn with a report spring/summer 2016.
Local Government Association(LGA) review
Following a vision paper issued by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, the LGA have announced a piece of work to look at: Developing a comprehensive picture of the current state of the service, in terms of statutory duties, service activities, resourcing and structures and the key outcomes this supports. Seeking the views of councillors and senior local government managers on what local government needs from its trading standards services, including through facilitated discussions and workshops Identifying whether there is a consensus view of local government’s requirements for the service, and the possible options for delivering this.
Publication is expected in Autumn 2015
Government's review as announced in their Productivity Plan
As part of the Government's productivity plan they have announced a review of Trading Standards. It states that the Government "will review Trading Standards to ensure that consumer enforcement capability effectively supports competition and better regulation objectives". This is being jointly led by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and the Better Regulation Delivery Office. This work has to be completed to help inform the spending review which is due to be published 25/11/15.
2. Conclusion
Adopting an intelligence led approach, reorganising officers to meet needs and priorities in a flexible way and exploring alternative delivery methods are all ways that have been adopted to ensure that the Trading Standards Service in Lincolnshire has retained the ability to protect and safeguard the most vulnerable victims of consumer fraud, whilst balancing our approach to monitoring and supporting a fair and safe trading economy. There are still risks around the services resilience and therefore alternative delivery models are being explored. We await with interest the outcome of the three national reviews into the service and will try and ensure that Lincolnshire's views are heard at a national level.
3. Consultation
a) Policy Proofing Actions Required n/a
4. Appendices
These are listed below and attached at the back of the report Appendix A Risk Scoring Matrix 5. Background Papers
There are no background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.
This report was written by Sara Barry, who can be contacted on 01522 552499 or [email protected]
Trading Standards Tasking Scoring Matrix
Criteria Score Rationale 1-3
Does the identified problem link to the National, ‘ Regional or Local control strategy priorities ?
What intelligence supports the tasking request?
Does the problem affect the safety of consumers/users/businesses?
To what extent can affected persons detect the . problem before purchase?
Does the problem cause or risk significant detriment to vulnerable groups?
What is the detriment in terms of financial gain/loss, environmental harm, health or social impact
Is there any adverse history of the persons involved?
Are there alternative means to achieve a similar objective? (e.g. ASA, other regulatory bodies etc.)
Is the identified threat/risk happening now or is it imminent?
Does the action proposed help to stop or deter the activity taking place?
Is there a reputational risk if no action is conducted?
TOTAL Out of 33
Policy and Scrutiny
Open Report on behalf of Pete Moore, Executive Director of Finance and Public Protection
Report to: Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee Date: 2 September 2015 Subject: Proposed Court Closures Consultation KeyDecision decision? Reference: No Summary: This report briefs the Committee in respect of the consultation being conducted by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) to rationalise the court estate across England and Wales. The consultation includes the proposed closure of both Grantham and Skegness Magistrates Courts.
The MOJ have issued a consultation (Appendices A and B) that offers a number of proposals in respect of court closures. The target of the consultation, which runs from 16 July to 8 October 2015, is court users, magistracy, judiciary and anyone else with an interest in the provision of justice arrangements in England and Wales.
LCC and in particualr the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee has a vested interest in this consultation, which includes: the impact for LOCAL justice, the impact on victims and witnesses, the cost to all involved in securing justice, the potential impact on reported crime and the decline in the criminal justice infrastrucutre in Lincolnshire.
Actions Required: The Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider this report and offer guidance and comment in respect of a response to the consultation.
1. Background
1.1 The attached consultation document seeks to capture the views of the wider community in respect of proposals to close local Magistrates Courts. In Lincolnshire we have four Magistrate courts: Lincoln, Boston, Grantham, and Skegness. The consultation identifies Skegness and Grantham as being underutilised by 20% and 24% respectively, and therefore not offering value for money. The report identifies, in some detail, the state of repair of the estate and whether the present buildings are fit for purpose. 1.2 The report pays less attention in respect of Lincolnshire being a rural county, and spends less time discussing the needs of the community, the number of trials, the typical travel distance of victims, witnesses and offenders and their needs. The review, identifies Lincoln as being just 30 miles away from Grantham, and therefore implies Lincoln will adequately service the needs of those living in the south of the county. The report fails to recognise that victims and witnesses may travel from Stamford (54 miles or 2hrs 13 minutes by train) or the Deepings or some other part of rural Lincolnshire.
1.3 In closing down Skegness, the report identifies that Boston is just 25 miles away. However, like Grantham, Skegness Magistrates serves a wide rural community, for example victims and witnesses travelling from North Somercotes will have a 44 mile journey (1hr 10 min by car, 5 hours by train or bus (google mapping).
1.4 The report does not recognise the importance of local justice, delivered by local people being able to be challenged and scrutinised at a local level.
1.5 The proposal fails to expand on alternative solutions, choosing to focus on the single solution, closing two courts and rely on the existing provision to support the whole of the county.
1.6 A number of questions need to be asked which include: will the closure of two of the four magistrate courts lead to a decline in confidence in our justice system? Will victims and witnesses will be less likely to travel? Has the consultation considered that in a number of cases witnesses and victims are expected to travel more than once, particularly when the offender has failed to appear or in some cases when the hearing extends into two or more days, will this impact on justice?
1.7 Will we experience an increase in 'fail to appear' at court? Not only causing increased stress, cost and inconvenience to witnesses and victims, but creating increased demand and costs for other public sector including Police, Youth Offending Services and Children's Services, not to mention the delay in delivering justice (which may as a consequence see an increase in crime).
1.8 Has MOJ balanced the saving from the closure of the court against likely increased costs to the wider criminal justice system, the impact on communities, the cost on increased crime and a slower criminal justice process and the impact on the economy?
1.9 The proposal will need to consider the implications for: those most vulnerable within our community; those with severe health issues; people with disabilities and those vulnerable through age. The proposal should consider the increased stress and pressure placed on victims and witnesses being asked to travel excessive distances to places they are not familiar. A consequence of this proposal might be that many victims choose not to report crime and face the difficulties created in a drive for efficiency that fails to address the need to deliver an effective service for the user. 2. Conclusion
This paper makes the following proposal in response to the consultation:
That the MOJ reconsiders their approach to this consultation and considers what it is we wish to deliver in respect of a justice system for ALL the communities of Lincolnshire.
That a number of alternatives are scoped before the closure of this service is proposed. These proposals should include:-
1. Scaling down the provision of justice at Grantham and Skegness to match the demand, rather than moving the demand elsewhere. Or review other court services and arbitration requirements to increase the use of both courts, i.e. Coroners, Industrial Tribunals etc. 2. That the utilisation of alternative public buildings be considered to enable courts to be held in both towns i.e. Council Chambers, Police Facility 3. That Digital solutions be considered to enable witnesses and victims to attend court 'remotely' 4. That the jurisdiction of courts and the area they service be reconsidered, i.e. Peterborough Magistrates able to hear South Lincolnshire Cases 5. That the financial saving be considered against the likely increase in financial burden on interdependent services and likely knock-on impact on wider economic issues and 6. That the potential financial impact on the justice service (broken cases, reluctant to attend or report, failure to attend, cost of travel, cost of police) be extrapolated and presented as part of the case for closure.
3. Consultation
a) Policy Proofing Actions Required n/a
4. Appendices
These are listed below and attached at the back of the report Appendix A Proposal on the Provision of Court and Tribunal Services in the Midlands Region Appendix B Proposal on the Provision of Court and Tribunal Estate in England and Wales 5. Background Papers
No background papers within Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 were used in the preparation of this report.
This report was written by Mark Housley, who can be contacted on 01522 554593 or [email protected]. Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region
This consultation begins on 16 July 2015 This consultation ends on 8 October 2015
Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region
A consultation produced by the Ministry of Justice. It is also available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ About this consultation
To: This consultation is aimed at court users, partners, judiciary, staff and other parties with an interest in the provision of local justice arrangements in the Midlands region.
Duration: From 16/07/2015 to 08/10/2015
Enquiries (including requests HMCTS Consultation for the paper in an alternative Ministry of Justice format) to: Post point 1.13 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 0161 240 5021 Fax: 0870 761 7768 Email: [email protected]
How to respond: HMCTS Consultation Ministry of Justice Post point 1.13 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Fax: 0870 761 7768 Email: [email protected]
Additional ways to For further information please use the “Enquiries” contact feed in your views: details above.
Response paper: A response to this consultation exercise is due to be published at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/
Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Contents
Foreword 3
Introduction 4
The proposals 7
Questionnaire 42
About you 43
Contact details/How to respond 44
Impact Assessment 46
Consultation principles 47
1 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
2 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Foreword
HM Courts & Tribunals Service is committed to working with the judiciary to reform our services so they better meet the needs of the public in the modern age. Considerable investment will enable us to transform how justice is delivered, creating a modern, efficient service. Taking this opportunity, however, will require challenging decisions about the current system. One such decision relates to the courts and tribunals estate.
I am responsible for managing the operations of HM Courts & Tribunals Service in the Midlands region, and I have reviewed the court and tribunal estate against the estates principles set out in the national consultation. I have identified buildings where I believe our ability to deliver an efficient service has been compromised by poor facilities, where usage is low and where the building does not provide appropriate value for the public money spent on it.
I have carefully considered the impact of the proposed changes – both locally and across the Midlands region. This consultation is an opportunity for the public to use their knowledge of their local areas to review and help us with our proposals.
Of course, staff would be affected by these proposed changes. Although the impact will be limited, I will make sure this is managed properly. Any transition to new arrangements will take place in a fair and transparent manner in consultation with the Departmental Trade Union.
I understand that these proposals could result in some people having longer journeys to the courts and tribunals. I am committed to working with rural communities to provide alternative ways for the public to access the justice system. These could include the use of civic or other public buildings for occasional hearings, video links or telephone or paper hearings to avoid travel altogether. It is vital we understand the demand for alternative provision as we plan services for the future.
I am keen to hear people’s views on the different ways they would like to interact with their courts and tribunals, particularly from those in rural communities. It is important we understand the demand for these different methods as we plan provision for the future.
Thank you for considering this consultation.
Lucy Garrod
Delivery Director HM Courts & Tribunals Service Midlands
3 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Introduction
This consultation for the Midlands is part of a national consultation on the future of the court and tribunal estate in England and Wales. The national consultation document provides important information about the reform of courts and tribunals and how we have decided which buildings to consult on. It also includes a full list of the courts and tribunals we are consulting on and our other plans to integrate courts into existing buildings within a local area.
You should make sure you read the national consultation document alongside this.
The national consultation sets out:
the requirement for changes to the estate;
the utilisation levels across the estate;
the accompanying Impact Assessment; and
implications for local justice areas and listing changes.
Responses to questions in both the national consultation and this consultation are welcome but need not be duplicated.
HM Courts & Tribunals Service HM Courts & Tribunals Service is an agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). It is responsible for the administration of the criminal, civil and family courts and tribunals in England and Wales1 and non-devolved tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It operates as a partnership between the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals.
In March 2014, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Senior President of Tribunals announced details of a programme of reform for the courts and tribunals. This will improve the court and tribunal estate, deliver greater use of technology, modernise practices and processes, and improve services for our users.
At the heart of this programme are the use of technology and the principle of proportionality. Straightforward, transactional matters (such as the administration of probate or pleading guilty and paying a fine) can be dealt with using digital technology to make the processes as straightforward as filing a tax return, or renewing car tax online. Straightforward cases do not necessarily need face to face hearings; judges will be able to reserve the full proceedings of a court hearing for the more sensitive or complex cases. Modern technology can be used not just to make the justice system more accessible but also to reduce the costs of the whole justice system by not requiring extensive transportation of prisoners for bail hearings, or the police to take full days off their priority work to sit in a court room.
1 Some tribunals which are part of HMCTS in England are devolved to the Welsh Government in Wales.
4 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Ahead of full implementation of the reform programme, we are seeking views on the closure of courts and tribunals which we believe do not meet our ideas of how best to deliver justice in the future.
Access to justice We recognise that the public should not have to make excessively long or difficult journeys to attend hearings at courts and tribunals. We also know, however, that in an increasingly digital age, the public expect to be able to engage with any service through a variety of channels, and many prefer to do that digitally. They do not always want or need to attend hearings in person. Delivering effective access to justice does not necessarily mean providing access to a building. This challenges the assumption that there needs to be a court or tribunal in every local area.
We already have well established alternative ways that users can access the justice system. There are examples of this: enabling police officers to give evidence over a live link, processes to enable victims, witnesses and defendants to attend hearings over video link, and users in some jurisdictions having cases progressed or considered through telephone hearings or on papers, meaning that they do not need to attend a hearing in person at all. Where attendance at a hearing is needed other civic or public buildings could be used for hearings where security requirements are low.
These types of alternative provision could be particularly useful in rural communities and/or areas with limited public transport. We are very keen to hear views on alternative provision, for example video link in civic or other public buildings.
Deciding which courts to include in the proposals
In order to achieve a radical transformation of the justice system, any investment must be targeted and sequenced across all three key areas of ICT, estates and business processes to create the efficiencies that will allow HM Courts & Tribunals Service to modernise its current practices and to adopt more streamlined ways of working. We are therefore, as a first priority, addressing the current surplus capacity within the HM Courts & Tribunals Service estate. This will enable us to use the remaining estate more intelligently and flexibly, to reduce our running costs, to focus our investment on improving the estate we need for the future and to increase the multifunctional court space – allowing different court and tribunal jurisdictions to share locations. The intention is that capital receipts from the sale of any surplus assets would be reinvested as part of the funding for the reform programme. To ensure we deliver business effectively and meet our future strategic requirements, HM Courts & Tribunals Service has applied a set of principles against which the proposals in this consultation were developed.
The principles are:
Ensuring Access to Justice To ensure continued access to justice when assessing the impact of possible closures on both professional and lay court and tribunal users, taking into account journey times for users, the challenges of rural access and any mitigating action, including having facilities at local civic centres and other buildings to ensure local access, modern ICT and more flexible listing, when journeys will be significantly increased.
5 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
To take into account the needs of users and in particular, victims, witnesses and those who are vulnerable.
To support the requirements of other agencies such as the Crown Prosecution Service, Social Services, Police Forces and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS).
Delivering Value for Money To reduce the current and future cost of running the estate.
To maximise the capital receipts from surplus estate for reinvestment in HM Courts & Tribunals Service.
Enabling Efficiency in the longer term To reduce the reliance on buildings with poor facilities and to remove from the estate buildings that are difficult and expensive either to improve or to upgrade.
To move towards an estate with buildings which are larger and facilitate the more efficient and flexible listing of court and tribunal business whilst also giving users more certainty when their cases will be heard.
To increase the ability to use the estate flexibly across the criminal jurisdiction and separately across the Civil, Family and Tribunal (CFT) jurisdictions.
To move towards an estate that provides dedicated hearing centres, seeking opportunities to concentrate back office function where they can be carried out most efficiently.
To improve the efficient use of the estate by seeking to improve whole system efficiency, taking advantage of modernised communication methods (wi-fi and video links) and adopting business processes to increase efficiency and effectiveness.
To increase the efficient use of the estate wherever possible irrespective of current administrative boundaries.
Responding to the consultation We are keen to obtain views on the proposals to change the provision of court and tribunal estate and how we can make sure the public can still access the justice system. We have committed to consider each response. The responses will help us make sure that the courts and tribunals are based where the work is and that communities can access the justice system and that cases are heard in buildings with suitable facilities.
This consultation is being conducted in line with the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office. It will run for 12 weeks.
This consultation and the consultation stage Impact Assessment are also available at www.gov.uk/moj.
6 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
The proposals
This consultation proposes the closure of the following courts2 and tribunals:
Birmingham Youth Court
Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court
Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court
Corby Magistrates’ Court
Grantham Magistrates’ Court
Hinckley Magistrates’ Court
Kettering County Court
Kettering Magistrates’ Court
Sandwell Magistrates’ Court
Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court
Skegness Magistrates’ Court
Solihull Magistrates’ Court
Stafford Magistrates’ Court
Worksop Magistrates’ Court
In addition, there are three integrations set out below.
Travel times As part of our work to assess the impact of these proposals on the public, we have included information on the distance by road between the court proposed for closure and the court where the work would transfer. There are also details of public transport costs and journey times which are provided as a guide only and are subject to change. This information does not illustrate the potential impact on travel times for the public in the catchment area of the court. We have developed a model to analyse this.
2 Reference in this document to magistrates’ courts, county courts, crown courts and combined courts refers to buildings (a singular structure providing the physical hearing rooms for criminal, civil, family and tribunal cases) which house that activity in a particular location. Strictly, legislation provides that there is a single crown court, county court and family court.
7 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
The model analyses the current catchment area of the court and the population within it, calculated to the smallest geographical area available with current national statistics (known as a Lower Super Output Area or LSOA). The model then calculates the travel time from the centre of each LSOA to the current court separately by car and public transport and then calculates the proportion of the population who could travel to court in set time bands. The model then calculates new journey times based on the location of the court where the work would be heard should the court close. These travel times are displayed in a table format within each site proposal
Due to the nature of the rural areas of the Midlands, we are and will continue to be flexible where people have trouble attending a court or tribunal for a particular time due to the availability of transport. By their nature, such requests would be considered through representations made on a case-by-case basis.
Integrations To provide users with an overview of all proposed change to the estate, the consultation also includes information on where we plan to integrate courts within the same town or city. Local stakeholders will be notified of these changes when they take place.
An integration is when HM Courts & Tribunals Service moves work to allow jurisdictions to operate from fewer locations in a local area. This allows the closure of a building or buildings while retaining local jurisdictions, with a limited impact on service provision. Integrations are managed by HM Courts & Tribunals Service operational leads as part of the normal running of the business. These have been identified using the principles set out in the ‘Introduction.’ The proposals for closures in the region should be considered in the context of these integrations.
In addition to the proposed closures in this consultation the following integrations will be taking place or are already underway in the Midlands region:
Chesterfield County Court to be integrated within Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court (Chesterfield Justice Centre) Chesterfield County Court co-located into the Chesterfield Magistrates' Court Building in Tapton Lane, Chesterfield in January this year. This has provided increased flexibility and improved utilisation of HM Courts and Tribunals estate. The co-location has had minimal impact on customers and was funded by the region. The building is now referred to as Chesterfield Justice Centre.
Chesterfield Tribunal (St Mary’s Court) to be integrated within Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court (Chesterfield Justice Centre) Enabling works are currently underway at Chesterfield Justice Centre to facilitate the co- location of Chesterfield Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) later this year. The co- location will have minimal impact on customers as the buildings are very close to each other, and facilities at the Justice Centre are far better for all tribunal users than is the case in the current building. This will provide increased flexibility and improved utilisation of HM Courts & Tribunals estate by corralling resources into one justice centre.
8 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Hereford County Court and Family to be integrated within Hereford Magistrates’ Court Hereford County Court and Family Court moved into Hereford Magistrates' Court at the end of March this year. The co-location has had minimal impact on court users and was funded by the region. This has provided increased flexibility and improved utilisation of HM Courts and Tribunals estate and will reduce ongoing running costs while maintaining local service to court users.
Telford County Court and Family Court to be integrated within Telford Magistrates’ Court The centralisation of workload and court hearings in one location in Telford would provide increased flexibility and allow improved utilisation of the court and tribunal estate. These changes will have minimal impact on customers as both court centres are of similar standard and are located next to each other.
9 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Birmingham Youth Court
Proposal It is proposed that Birmingham Youth Court is closed and its workload transferred to Birmingham Magistrates’ Court. Some enabling works will be required to accommodate the level of youth facilities at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.
Combining all resources in one location would provide an improved efficient service to be delivered by Birmingham Magistrates’ Court. This location will then be able to offer good quality accommodation and facilities for HM Court & Tribunals Service users with no additional travel.
During last year it was necessary to move Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal hearings from Temple Court (upon expiry of lease) to Birmingham Youth Court. This is a temporary measure only and forms part of a wider Birmingham estates strategy.
Workload The Judicial Leadership Group agreed a court schedule to take effect from 1 July 2011 to reduce the number of youth court sitting days from five to three. During the 2014/15 financial year, the court was used for approximately 35% of its capacity.
Accommodation Birmingham Youth Court was purpose built in 1928 and has been extended on subsequent occasions. The court accommodates Pre Sentencing Reviews, remand hearings and youth trials. There are six courtrooms, none of which have secure docks. There is direct access from the custody area to three of the courtrooms (one on the ground floor, one on the first floor and one on the second floor).
There are three cells; two on the ground floor and one on the first floor (although the one on the first floor is considered to be a holding room). These are all in a poor condition and require refurbishment.
There is no van dock at Birmingham Youth Court; this results in cellular vehicles having to park on the road outside the custody area to collect and deliver defendants in custody. This exposes escort agency staff to the risk of injury from the prisoners and interference with prisoners by members of the public.
The building shares a fire escape route with an adjacent public house. If there is an incident in the public area and the building needs to be evacuated the Youth Offending Team based in the court need to go through the cells to get out of the building.
Defence solicitors often have clients listed to appear in both the adult court and youth court on the same day. This means that advocates frequently have to move between buildings causing inconvenience to the parties and delay to hearings.
Birmingham Magistrates’ Court building contains 21 courtrooms of varying sizes over two floors. Four of the courtrooms have full security docks and five more have docks with direct cell access. Not all courtrooms are now in use and court 5 is regularly used by tribunals. The cells in the Birmingham Magistrates’ Court are split into two locations with 19 cells in the main corridor and a further four cells in an area off the main corridor. The Birmingham
10 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Magistrates’ Court has a secure van dock; prisoners are brought in secure cell vans directly into the custody suite. Enabling works would be needed to fit a new curtain to an existing dock to make the courtroom appear less intimidating to young offenders. One existing large cell would need to be converted into two interview rooms and three existing interview rooms would be converted into two cells and a WC. This would facilitate the separation of adult and youth offenders.
Location Birmingham Youth Court is situated on the corner of Steelhouse Lane and Newton Street opposite the Birmingham Magistrates’ Court. The youth court entrance is approximately 200 metres from the magistrates’ court entrance and there is, therefore, no travel impact to consider.
Staff implications There are no HM Courts & Tribunal staff permanently based at Birmingham Youth Court.
There are seven Youth Offending staff based in the building and they would need to be relocated.
As a temporary measure some Social Security, Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal hearings have been relocated to Birmingham Youth Court. This will continue until a new location is available.
Other information The Birmingham Youth Court building is a freehold property.
The 2014/2015 operating costs of Birmingham Youth Court were approximately £245,000.
The building is not listed, but is in a conservation area.
11 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court is one of four magistrates’ courts in Staffordshire, the others being located in Cannock, Stafford and Newcastle-under-Lyme (North Staffordshire Justice Centre). Criminal and private prosecution hearings for both youth and adult cases take place within the court building; this work utilises two courtrooms each day with a third one operating one day a week. The court is also used for family hearings; this work utilises one courtroom four times per week. There is no cell accommodation located within the court, however police cells are utilised in the adjacent police station. The court has separate waiting facilities for prosecution witnesses but no separate facilities for defence witnesses. There are a number of access issues in parts of the building for people with disabilities, including in the main body of the court, the witness box and in the public seating areas in the courtrooms.
It is proposed that Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court should close and the workload be redistributed between Derby Magistrates’ Court, Cannock Magistrates’ Court and North Staffordshire Justice Centre, depending on the users’ geographical location. There is sufficient capacity at all the receiving locations to absorb the workload without any enabling works.
Should this proposal go ahead the Judicial Business Group (JBG) would undertake local stakeholder engagement to consider the need for the merger of Local Justice Areas.
Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court accommodates legal advisers and ushers; the support staff with responsibility for processing work from Burton-upon-Trent are currently located in Stafford. Should Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court close it would enable criminal and private cases to be relocated to other courts with better facilities within both Staffordshire and Derbyshire. This would provide a higher degree of flexibility as well as allowing improved utilisation of the HM Courts & Tribunals Service estate.
The availability of other court buildings within a relatively short distance of Burton-upon-Trent offering good quality facilities would maintain access to justice for HM Courts & Tribunals Service users.
Accommodation Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court is part Grade II listed, with the original building being built in 1910. An extension was built in 1991 to provide three courtrooms, two of which are multi-functional. It has a total of four courtrooms.
The facilities are outdated and HM Courts & Tribunals Service is dependent on the police authority for the provision of cell accommodation. On occasions this agreement has had to be withdrawn to enable cell refurbishment; once for several months. At this time custody cases were successfully relocated and dealt with at Cannock Magistrates’ Court.
Facilities for staff and judiciary are considered adequate; there is a maintenance backlog with some redecoration required. There are some access issues in parts of the building for people with disabilities, including in the main body of the court, the witness box and in the public seating areas in the courtrooms.
The court has separate waiting facilities for prosecution witnesses but no separate facilities for defence witnesses. There are video link facilities for intimidated and vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence, along with a Prison to Court Video link (PCVL) from courtroom 2,
12 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
which could be transferred to another building. The court has four interview rooms available for private consultation.
Workload During the 2014/15 financial year, Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court was utilised for approximately 51% of its capacity.
Location Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court is within walking distance from the town centre. Transportation is good with regular bus services to local towns and there is a railway station within walking distance of the court building.
Burton-upon-Trent to Cannock is 25 miles and the journey would take approximately 45 minutes by car; one hour 15 minutes by bus (with one change) and £6.10 for an all day bus pass; or an average of one hour 30 minutes by train costing £18.40 (Anytime Return).
Burton-upon-Trent to Derby is 12 miles and the journey would take approximately 25 minutes by car; 45 minutes by bus and £6.10 for an all day bus pass; or 15 minutes by train costing £7.30 (Anytime Return).
Burton-upon-Trent to Newcastle-under-Lyme is 35 miles and the journey would take approximately 50 minutes by car; two hours 30 minutes by bus (with two changes) and £6.10 for an all day bus pass; or an average of one hour 15 minutes by train costing £16.20 (Anytime Return).
The above timings and costings are indicative of journeys between court buildings but it would be the geographical location of the court user that would be taken into consideration when transferring the work.
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 89% 0-30min 52%
30-60min 11% 30-60min 39%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 0%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 9%
0-30min 25% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 44% 30-60min 21% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 28% Transport 60-120min 55% >120min 1% >120min 13%
no data 3% no data 11%
13 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Staff implications There are five part time ushers and five legal advisors based at Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court.
Other information Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court is a freehold property.
The 2014/2015 operating costs for Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court were approximately £196,000.
14 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court
Proposal Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court is located in one building. There are two other magistrates’ courts and two county courts in Derbyshire located in Chesterfield and Derby.
Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court has two courtrooms and no cells. General road traffic cases, pre-sentence reviews, short trials and occasionally youth, family and tribunal hearings are listed here, but the court is underused.
It is proposed that Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court is closed and the workload transferred to Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Family Court hearing centre, which is able to accommodate the workload without any enabling works.
The Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court building has received a steady rate of investment for repairs over the years in order to maintain the building satisfactorily. The facilities, however, are sub-standard and out of date for staff, judiciary and court users.
The court building is not fully compliant with the Equality Act 2010.The two courtrooms are located on the first floor. Access to both of the courtrooms is via two flights of stairs. There is no public lift. Wheelchair users are only able to gain access to the courtrooms by using the magistrates’ entrance at the rear of the building whereby assistance has to be provided in order to use the magistrates’ lift.
Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court is a leasehold building with two courtrooms and no cells. There is only one waiting room available so parties cannot be segregated. Vulnerable witnesses have to use a waiting room within the Citizens Advice Bureau / Witness Service building which is situated across the road from the court building. There are two consultation rooms within the courthouse, but the overall condition of these rooms is poor.
Should the court close it would result in the workload being moved to a larger court centre and would enable the court to be more responsive and flexible with the throughput and listing of cases, meeting customer and workflow demands more effectively. Chesterfield Magistrates’, County and Family Court is a modern Private Finance Initiative (PFI) purpose built court building, which opened in 2003 and offers excellent quality facilities for HM Courts & Tribunals Service users.
Accommodation Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court is a leasehold building with two courtrooms and no cells. In the event that a person is sentenced to imprisonment an arrangement is in place for the police to collect and take the individual to the local police station prior to removal to custody.
There is one waiting room available in the building, so the desired segregation of parties cannot be achieved within the courthouse. A vulnerable witness waiting room is available within the Citizens Advice Bureau Witness Service building which is situated outside the courthouse and across the road. This room is also used for video link cases. The cost of the use of this room to HM Courts & Tribunals Service is £1,625 per annum.
There are two consultation rooms within the courthouse, but the overall condition of these rooms is poor.
15 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
The receiving venue, Chesterfield Magistrates’, County and Family Court, is fully compliant with health and safety regulations. It has excellent accommodation facilities and is compliant with the Equality Act 2010.
Chesterfield Magistrates’, County and Family Court has seven courtrooms. There are separate waiting areas for prosecution and defence witnesses. The building provides improved accommodation for our victim and witness support services, National Probation Service and Crown Prosecution Service colleagues, providing workstations and offices.
Workload Court sessions are held daily at Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court. Two court sessions are held on Monday morning, Monday afternoon, Wednesday morning and Wednesday afternoon. One court session is held on Tuesday morning, Tuesday afternoon, Thursday morning and Friday morning. One court session is held once per month on Thursday afternoon. One court session is held once per fortnight on Friday afternoon.
Cases heard include adult trials, sentencing, Guilty Anticipated Plea (GAP) hearings, Not Guilty Anticipated Plea (NGAP) hearings, private prosecutions, youth cases, road traffic police led prosecutions, family matters and occasional tribunal hearings.
Custody cases are not listed.
Buxton County Court sits on one day per month.
During the 2014/15 financial year, Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court was utilised for approximately 27% of its capacity.
Location Chesterfield Magistrates’, County and Family Court is situated approximately 25 miles from Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court.
The journey time by car is approximately 50 minutes. There is adequate local authority owned public car parking available opposite the court building.
The travel time by train between Buxton and Chesterfield takes approximately two hours and 15 minutes. The approximate cost of an Anytime Day Return is £32.30. Trains between Buxton and Chesterfield run at least hourly, and require one to two changes.
A bus service operates between Buxton and Chesterfield. The travel time by bus is, on average, one hour 20 minutes.
16 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 73% 0-30min 3%
30-60min 27% 30-60min 56%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 41%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 23% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 41% 30-60min 0% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 32% Transport 60-120min 21% >120min 2% >120min 73%
no data 3% no data 6%
Staff implications There are eight members of staff permanently based at Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court.
Other information The tenure on Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court is leasehold, which expires in 2130.
The 2014/2015 operating costs for Buxton Magistrates’ Court were approximately £89,000.
No other agencies are based on site at the court building.
Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court building is leased from Derbyshire County Council. It is located within a Derbyshire County Council owned building and as such it is not part of the Ministry of Justice estate, nor does it fall within the remit of the Derbyshire Private Finance Initiative PFI contract. The building was erected in 1880, and it is shared with the Buxton Museum and Art Gallery. Part of the building is unoccupied.
17 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Corby Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Corby Magistrates’ Court was built in 1958 and is one of four magistrates’ courts in Northamptonshire; the others being Kettering, Wellingborough and Northampton. The court deals with criminal court business including the hearing of trials, breaches of orders and pre- sentence reviews. The building houses two courtrooms which are used twice a week.
It is proposed that Corby Magistrates’ Court closes and the workload be transferred to Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court. Only one of the two courtrooms at Corby has a secure dock, there is no secure van dock and all of the cells available are owned by the police authority. There is no separate facility for vulnerable victims and witnesses.
There are no staff permanently based at Corby. The current arrangements for staffing involve legal advisors travelling from Northampton on the days when hearings are conducted. Some enabling works at Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court would be required (minor decoration and removals) to facilitate this move.
As part of the wider consultation for HM Courts & Tribunals Service reforms there is also a proposal to close Kettering Magistrates’ Court and move the workload to Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court. Details of this proposal can be found at page 24 of this document.
Should Corby Magistrates’ Court close and the workload be transferred to Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court, it would facilitate a more flexible approach to the listing of cases and help to meet customer and workflow demands more effectively and efficiently.
Should this proposal go ahead the Judicial Business Group (JBG) would undertake local stakeholder engagement to consider the need for the merger of Local Justice Areas.
Accommodation Corby Magistrates’ Court houses two courtrooms, only one of which has a secure dock. The court has access to a total of 14 cells which are owned by the police authority and rarely used by the court following a recent change in listing practices; only one of the 14 cells has a secure link to the dock. The court has a dedicated witness room, however, there is no separate facility for vulnerable victims and witnesses. There is no secure van dock for defendants in custody and there is no separate access to the court building for defendants on bail, victims and witnesses.
Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court has the benefit of four video link rooms and three courtrooms with nine cells, two of which have direct and secure access to the court.
Workload Corby Magistrates’ Court houses two courtrooms which are used on two days each week to hear criminal trials, pre-sentencing reviews and breaches of court orders. The court was used for approximately 33% of its capacity during the 2014/15 financial year.
Location Corby Magistrates’ Court is situated within the central business district of Corby. There are frequent bus services and trains between Wellingborough and Corby. The train journey takes
18 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
approximately 20 minutes and an Open Return Ticket costs £11.80 at the time of publishing. The distance between the court buildings is approximately 17 miles and the journey time is approximately 30 minutes by car. Buses run every 30 minutes and take approximately one hour 15 minutes.
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 71% 0-30min 10%
30-60min 29% 30-60min 84%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 7%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 29% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 14% 30-60min 12% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 45% Transport 60-120min 60% >120min 5% >120min 21%
no data 7% no data 8%
Staff implications There are no staff permanently based at Corby Magistrates’ Court.
Other information Corby Magistrates’ Court is a freehold property. The building is unoccupied save for the two days per week when the court sits.
The operating costs for Corby Magistrates’ Court during 2014/15 were approximately £80,000.
19 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Grantham Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Grantham Magistrates’ Court is one of four magistrates’ courts within Lincolnshire, the other three being Skegness, Boston and Lincoln. This court lists criminal and county court work for seven days out of ten each fortnight.
It is proposed that Grantham Magistrates’ Court is closed and that the workload and resources be transferred to Lincoln Magistrates’ Court and Lincoln County Court. No enabling works are required to facilitate this move.
Grantham Magistrates’ Court building is split over two separate buildings. The main building houses three courtrooms across two floors. The second building is located at the side of the main building and houses a non secure courtroom and waiting facilities. Because of its separation and non secure status, it is only used once a fortnight for civil work. This means that additional security and ushers are needed to run this building on these days.
Should Grantham Magistrates’ Court close it would provide increased listing flexibility and enable the receiving court to be more responsive with the throughput of cases, meeting customer and workflow demands more effectively. An improved more efficient service can then be delivered with courts being utilised efficiently.
Lincoln Magistrates’ Court and Lincoln County Court both have excellent facilities for HM Courts & Tribunals Service users and have the capacity to absorb the workload. These two sites operate the full range of hearings for both county and magistrates’ courts, including crime, family, civil and tribunal sessions and the majority of the county’s staff are based at the Lincoln courts.
Accommodation Grantham Magistrates’ Court building is split over two separate sites. The main building houses three courtrooms across two floors (two main courtrooms and a small courtroom used for small party civil or family work), facilities for the Crown Prosecution Service, National Probation Service and Witness Services. There are waiting rooms on both floors. There is an office space but no HM Courts & Tribunal Service staff are based at this site nor staff from other agencies. HM Courts & Tribunal Service staff travel to the court from other locations to operate the courts on sitting days.
The Lincoln Magistrates’ Court and Lincoln County Court buildings offer improved accommodation and facilities; these include a total of nine courtrooms and two district judges’ chambers. There are two tribunal hearing rooms, one of which is periodically used as a courtroom. Lincoln Magistrates’ Court building houses a catering facility for the use of all parties. It is centrally located close to the bus and train stations in Lincoln.
Workload Grantham Magistrates’ Court is open on seven of every ten days on a fortnightly basis. Utilisation has decreased in recent years with several areas of work moving out of the court. During the 2014/15 financial year, the court was utilised for approximately 24% of its capacity.
20 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Location Grantham Magistrates’ Court is located 30 miles away from Lincoln Magistrates’ and County Courts. The journey by car takes approximately 50 minutes and there is a bus and train service to Lincoln serving the surrounding catchment areas, with travel costing a maximum of £14.60 for an anytime return ticket by train. The trains run hourly and the journey takes an average of one hour 15 minutes each way.
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 89% 0-30min 4%
30-60min 11% 30-60min 92%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 3%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 19% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 37% 30-60min 6% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 33% Transport 60-120min 78% >120min 9% >120min 14%
no data 3% no data 3%
Staff implications There is one member of HM Courts & Tribunal Service staff based at Grantham Magistrates’ Court.
Other information Grantham Magistrates’ Court is a freehold building.
The 2014/15 operating costs for Grantham Magistrates’ Court were approximately £237,000.
21 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Hinckley Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Hinckley Magistrates’ Court is one of three magistrates’ courts within the Leicestershire and Rutland area, Leicester and Loughborough being the two other centres. This county is also served by Leicester Crown Court.
This consultation proposes to close Hinckley Magistrates’ Court and transfer the workload to Leicester Magistrates’ Court which was built in 1992. Minor enabling works would be required to accommodate storage of files.
Hinckley Magistrates’ Court has three courtrooms and opens twice a week on Tuesday and Thursday, and utilisation is low. Workload has continued to decline in recent years despite the transfer of work from Coalville Magistrates’ Court in July 2011.
Leicester Magistrates’ Court has 10 courtrooms, with seven having direct links to cells and has sufficient capacity to absorb the workload from Hinckley Magistrates’ Court.
Accommodation Hinckley Magistrates’ Court was built in 1999 and does not now meet the current requirement in provision for witnesses; the court does not offer separate access for vulnerable and intimidated victims or witnesses. Although there is a dedicated witness room the court does not have the separate facility of a dedicated vulnerable witness waiting room. The court has video link facilities.
The court has three courtrooms which are supported by five cells, two of which provide a direct link to a courtroom with a secure dock. The dock holds a maximum of three defendants.
The receiving court, Leicester Magistrates’ Court, has 10 courtrooms with seven having direct links to cells; within the court there are 19 cells. 12 cells are designated male only, four are designated as female and youth cells only and three are undesignated toilet cells. There is a custody vehicle dock which is secure and unobserved by the public.
Workload During the 2014/15 financial year, Hinckley Magistrates’ Court was utilised for approximately 21% of its capacity.
Location Hinckley is 14 miles from Leicester. The bus service is a direct route between Hinckley and Leicester which operates every 20 minutes with the journey taking approximately 50 minutes and an All Day bus ticket costs £6.20.
Hinckley railway station is on the Nuneaton to Leicester section of the Birmingham to Peterborough line and has regular services between Birmingham and Leicester via Narborough and Nuneaton. Trains between Hinckley and Leicester run every 21 minutes and cost £11.50 return. The journey time by train is approximately 20 minutes.
The road system between these locations is good and travel by car takes approximately 30 minutes.
22 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 98% 0-30min 66%
30-60min 2% 30-60min 34%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 0%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 54% 0-30min 4%
30-60min 24% 30-60min 51% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 20% Transport 60-120min 42% >120min 2% >120min 3%
no data 0% no data 0%
Staff implications There are three members of staff on site at Hinckley Magistrates’ Court working reduced hours.
There are also 21 civilian enforcement officers based at the court who will be provided with alternative accommodation should the closure go ahead.
Other information Hinckley Magistrates’ Court is a freehold property.
The operating costs for the financial year 2014-15 at Hinckley Magistrates’ Court were approximately £240,000.
23 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Kettering County Court
Proposal Kettering County Court is one of two county courts in Northamptonshire, the other being Northampton Combined Court.
It is proposed that Kettering County Court is closed and its workload transferred to Northampton Crown Court, County Court and Family Court hearing centre. Enabling works would be required to facilitate the workload from Kettering.
The current Kettering County Court building is not fit for purpose and would require major investment for the delivery of modern justice.
Should Kettering County Court close it would enable work to be moved to a larger, modern, purpose built court centre which offers good quality facilities for HM Courts & Tribunals Service users. This will also enable the court to be responsive and flexible with the throughput and listing of cases meeting user and workflow demands more effectively.
Accommodation Kettering County Court was built in 1930, and has two courtrooms. The court is split over two floors and does not provide lift access between floors. The ground floor is not on one level and has a number of small steps which creates difficulties for anyone with mobility issues. Currently, where persons attending are unable to use the stairs, the hearing has to take place in a small ground floor interview room.
There are two rooms for district judges but only one room is able to be used for hearings due to restricted access.
There is no separate public toilet; staff and public share the same facilities.
The court utilisation is low with only one hearing room being available for use this provides limited listing as only one judge can sit on any given day.
Northampton Crown Court, County Court and Family Court hearing centre is centrally located. The centre offers improved accommodation and facilities; these include a total of six courtrooms and four district judge chambers with ample consultation rooms. There is a lift which enables access to the upper floor for those with mobility issues. Enabling works would be required; these would include creating a multi-jurisdictional open plan office, an additional courtroom and a centralised storage facility.
Workload The court building is open and staffed two days per week; normally Wednesday and Thursday for district judge hearings, the majority of which are rent and mortgage possessions. On those days the public counter is open on an appointment only basis. Utilisation levels at this court are low; during the 2014/15 financial year, it was used for 20% of its capacity.
All other civil hearings are heard at Northampton Crown Court, County Court, and Family Court hearing centre.
24 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Location Kettering County Court is situated in Kettering town centre. There is no public car park at the court. There is a municipal pay and display car park within a 10 minute walk at a cost of £3.00 for up to three hours or £6.00 for a full day.
Travel from Kettering to Northampton takes approximately 30 minutes by car, one hour by bus and two hours by train. Parking at Northampton is charged at £2.40 for up to three hours and £7.00 all day. A Day Return by bus costs £8.40 and a Day Return by train £22.80.
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 84% 0-30min 31%
30-60min 16% 30-60min 58%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 10%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 19% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 44% 30-60min 12% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 25% Transport 60-120min 60% >120min 9% >120min 22%
no data 3% no data 6%
Staff implications There are no HM Courts & Tribunal Service staff or other agencies based at Kettering County Court.
Other information Kettering County Court is a freehold property.
The 2014/15 operating costs for Kettering County Court were approximately £104,000.
25 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Kettering Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Kettering Magistrates’ Court is one of four magistrates’ courts in Northamptonshire; the others are located in Corby, Northampton and Wellingborough. The court deals with adult and youth criminal court business and Tribunal matters.
It is proposed that Kettering Magistrates’ Court closes and the workload be transferred to Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court, where some enabling works would be required to move furniture and for redecoration.
Should Kettering Magistrates’ Court close the consolidation of workload and resources into one court will enable the court to be more responsive and flexible to workflow demands. The throughput and listing of cases will improve which in turn will deliver enhanced customer service and improved courtroom utilisation.
As part of the wider consultation for HM Courts & Tribunals Service reforms there is also a proposal to close Corby Magistrates’ Court and transfer the work to Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court, creating a central point of access to justice for the area. Details of this proposal can be found at page 15 of this document.
Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court offers good quality facilities for HM Courts & Tribunals users. Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court has three courtrooms and nine cells, two of which have a direct link to the courtroom. Workload from Kettering Magistrates’ Court would easily be accommodated at this site.
Should this proposal go ahead the Judicial Business Group (JBG) would undertake local stakeholder engagement to consider the need for the merger of Local Justice Areas.
Accommodation Kettering Magistrates’ Court was built in 1967. The building has two courtrooms; both have a secure dock and access to five cells which are owned by the police authority. The building has two dedicated witness waiting rooms, however, this facility is not suitable for vulnerable victims and witnesses. There is no separate access to the court building for victims and witnesses and no secure van dock for defendants in custody.
Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court offers good quality facilities for HM Courts & Tribunals users. It has three courtrooms and nine cells, two of which have a direct link to the courtroom. There is a secure van dock for defendants in custody.
Workload Kettering Magistrates’ Court has two courtrooms and sits on four days per week. During 2014/15 it had an approximate utilisation level of 64%.
Location Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court is situated eight miles away from Kettering Magistrates’ Court.
The journey time by a car is approximately 20 minutes.
26 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
The travel time by train from Kettering to Wellingborough takes approximately 10 minutes, and costs £3.30 each way.
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 98% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 2% 30-60min 100%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 0%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 66% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 28% 30-60min 2% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 6% Transport 60-120min 86% >120min 0% >120min 12%
no data 0% no data 0%
Staff implications There are no HM Courts & Tribunals Service staff or other agencies based at Kettering Magistrates’ Court.
Other information Kettering Magistrates’ Court is a freehold building.
The 2014/15 operating costs for Kettering Magistrates’ Court were approximately £82,000.
The closure of Kettering Magistrates’ Court formed part of the Courts Estates Rationalisation Programme in 2010. It was proposed that Kettering Magistrates’ Court be closed, and that the workload be transferred to Corby and Wellingborough Magistrates’ Courts. The decision was made to retain Kettering Magistrates’ Court due to concerns that Corby and Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court; whose utilisation at that time was 70.5% and 85.9% respectively, did not have the capacity to absorb the workload. Daventry and Towcester Magistrates’ Courts were closed and Kettering Magistrates’ Court was retained. Since then workload has continued to reduce. Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court now has the capacity to absorb the workload from Kettering.
27 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Sandwell Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Sandwell Magistrates’ Court is one of four magistrates’ courts in the Black Country; the others being at Dudley, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The court deals with criminal court business in the adult and youth courts. It has five courtrooms but utilisation levels are low.
It is proposed that Sandwell Magistrates’ Court is closed and its workload is primarily transferred to Walsall Magistrates’ Court, which would be able to accommodate the additional work within its current building. However, dependant on the geographical location of the customers, some work would move to Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court or Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.
Should Sandwell Magistrates’ Court close it would result in the majority of the workload being moved to a court centre of similar size allowing the court to be more responsive and flexible with the throughput and listing of cases. This would meet customer and workflow demands more effectively and improve court utilisation and efficiency. Walsall Magistrates’ Court offers good quality facilities for HM Court & Tribunals Service users. Currently there are individual administrative teams at Sandwell Magistrates’ Court and Walsall Magistrates’ Court. The teams operate independently to deliver the service within their own court. The combining of all available resources into one site will enable HM Courts & Tribunals Service to improve performance and productivity while maximising use of accommodation.
Should this proposal go ahead the Judicial Business Group (JBG) would undertake local stakeholder engagement to consider the need for the merger of Local Justice Areas.
Accommodation Sandwell Magistrates’ Court was purpose built in 1989 and is in a conservation area. Sandwell Magistrates’ Court has five courts. Three of the courtrooms have secure docks and there is direct access from the custody area to all courts. There are eight cells, three of which can accommodate category A prisoners.
Walsall Magistrates’ Court was built in 1974 and has six courts and 10 cells. In all other respects the two buildings are of equally good standard, however, both courts are underused – during the 2013/14 financial year, Walsall Magistrates’ Court was utilised at approximately 57% of its capacity leaving enough capacity to easily absorb the work from Sandwell Magistrates’ Court.
Workload During the 2014/15 financial year, Sandwell Magistrates’ Court was utilised at approximately 47% of its capacity.
Location Sandwell Magistrates’ Court is situated approximately 10 miles from Walsall Magistrates’ Court. There are frequent train and bus services. The travel time by train is approximately 50 minutes or it is a bus journey of approximately 55 minutes each way.
The journey time by car is approximately 30 minutes.
28 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 100% 0-30min 100%
30-60min 0% 30-60min 0%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 0%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 41% 0-30min 1%
30-60min 48% 30-60min 75% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 11% Transport 60-120min 23% >120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
Staff implications There are 16 administrative, four legal, and one legal admin support staff based at Sandwell Magistrates’ Court.
There are some National Probation Service staff based in the building; the Black Country Enforcement staff use the car park facilities only.
Other Information Sandwell Magistrates’ Court is a freehold property.
The 2014/2015 operating costs of Sandwell Magistrates’ Court were approximately £407,000.
29 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court is one of two magistrates’ courts within Shropshire, the other being Telford Magistrates’ Court. The court lists and hears criminal adult, civil and tribunal work. Criminal adult work is listed twice a week occupying two courts. Civil and family work is listed two days a week and tribunal work four days a week.
It is proposed that Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court close and the workload be transferred to Telford Magistrates’ Court. Some enabling works will be required at Telford to accommodate the judiciary and workload from Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court.
Should Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court close, it would enable the movement of work to Telford Magistrates’ Court which would provide increased flexibility with the throughput and listing of cases and improve courtroom utilisation, which is currently low. It would also increase the ability to respond to workflow demands which would result in an improved service to court and tribunal users.
Telford Magistrates’ Court offers good quality facilities which will be further improved through the proposed enabling works. There are also excellent transport links between Shrewsbury and Telford.
Accommodation Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court has a total of four courtrooms and 13 cells, all of which are operational.
Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court was built in 1994. Facilities are in good condition for both staff and magistrates. The court has separate waiting facilities for prosecution witnesses but no separate facilities for defence witnesses. Two courtrooms have a secure dock, one has video link facilities and the remaining courtrooms are both multi-functional rooms. There are video link facilities for intimidated and vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence. The court has five interview rooms available for private consultation. The court is compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and there are no security issues.
Telford Magistrates Court has six courtrooms and 15 cells; four of which have easy access or direct links to the courtrooms. The enabling works will make sure that the hearings and workload from Shrewsbury Magistrates can be accommodated. The building is in good condition and there are no issues in relation to the building fabric or health and safety.
Workload During the 2014/15 financial year, Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court was utilised at approximately 28% of its capacity.
Location Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court is situated on the perimeter of the county town and is a short distance from the town centre. Transportation is good with regular bus services to local towns and a mainline station. There is a local bus service from Shrewsbury town centre to Telford with an average journey time of approximately 40 minutes which costs £5.50 for a return journey. The journey by train is 20 minutes and costs £5.50 for a return journey.
30 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
The journey time by a car is approximately 20 minutes from Shrewsbury to Telford, and there is local authority parking available.
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 61% 0-30min 47%
30-60min 39% 30-60min 52%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 1%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 20% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 30% 30-60min 12% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 39% Transport 60-120min 71% >120min 6% >120min 10%
no data 4% no data 7%
Staffing implications There are three staff based at Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court; the legal advisors having already moved to Telford Magistrates’ Court last year.
Other information Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court is a freehold property.
The operating costs for Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court during 2014/15 were approximately £287,000.
Should Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court close, HM Courts & Tribunals Service will complete enabling works at the building and convert it into a Crown Court; with two courtrooms, one multi functional hearing room, cells and wheelchair lift. The current Crown Court building in Shrewsbury is no longer fit for purpose and the lease expires in September 2016. Facilities on site do not provide separate accommodation or entrance for vulnerable victim and witness and it does not provide separate defence and prosecution waiting rooms. To prevent witness interference, access is often through the Crown Court administration offices. There is no separate entrance for defendants in custody who alight the custody vehicle and are then escorted on foot through an area within the Shirehall which is shared with Shropshire County Council .The courtrooms are of a poor standard and the roof leaks during periods of heavy rainfall.
31 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Skegness Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Skegness Magistrates’ Court is one of four magistrates’ courts in Lincolnshire, the others being Lincoln, Boston and Grantham. The court deals with adult and youth criminal court business.
It is proposed that Skegness Magistrates’ Court close and the workload and resources are transferred to Boston Magistrates’ Court and Boston County Court and Family Court hearing centre. No enabling works would be required to facilitate this move.
Courtroom utilisation at Skegness is low with two out of the three available courtrooms being used twice per week on a two week rolling cycle. The combining of all available resources will enable a more responsive and flexible service with the throughput and listing of cases, meeting customer and workflow demands more effectively. An improved more efficient service can then be delivered with all available courtrooms being utilised more efficiently and effectively. The court centre at Boston offers good quality facilities for HM Courts & Tribunals Service customers.
As part of the wider consultation for HM Courts & Tribunals Service there is also a proposal to close Grantham Magistrates’ Court, where the receiving court would be Lincoln Magistrates’ Court.
Accommodation The court was built in 1979 and has a total of three courtrooms, only one of which has a secure dock. The court has two cells which have easy or direct access to the courtroom and HM Courts & Tribunals Service has the use of a further 14 cells belonging to the police authority. Skegness Magistrates’ Court has a dedicated witness room, however, this facility is not suitable for vulnerable victims and witnesses and there is no separate access to the courthouse for victims and witnesses.
Boston Magistrates’ Court and Boston County Court and Family Court hearing centre has two courtrooms and one district judge hearing room. It has seven cells, one of which has easy and direct access to the courtroom. The building has a secure custody vehicle dock and the route from the custody vehicle to the custody suite is secure and unobserved by the public.
Workload Skegness Magistrates’ Court works on a two week rolling cycle where two out of three courtrooms are utilised on two out of five working days per week. During the 2014/15 financial year, the court was used at approximately 20% of its capacity.
Location Skegness Magistrates’ Court is situated approximately 25 miles away from Boston Magistrates’ Court. The journey time by a car is approximately 40 minutes.
The travel time by train from Skegness to Boston takes approximately 40 minutes and an Anytime Day Return ticket costs £10.40.
32 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
A bus service operates between Skegness and Boston. The approximate travel time by bus is one hour 10 minutes.
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 52% 0-30min 2%
30-60min 43% 30-60min 54%
By Car 60-120min 5% By Car 60 - 120min 45%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 27% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 19% 30-60min 3% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 34% Transport 60-120min 43% >120min 21% >120min 44%
no data 0% no data 11%
Staff implications There are no staff permanently based at Skegness Magistrates’ Court and staff travel from either Boston Magistrates’ Court and Boston County Court and Family Court hearing centre or Lincoln Magistrates’ Courts when required.
Other information Skegness Magistrates’ Court is a freehold property.
The 2014/15 operating costs of Skegness Magistrates’ Court were approximately £198,000.
33 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Solihull Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Solihull Magistrates’ Court building is no longer used by HM Courts & Tribunals Service. Following a public consultation in 2013, due to the drop in workload, low utilisation and the benefits gained by the centralisation of listing, all magistrates’ work was consolidated into Birmingham Magistrates’ Court and no work has been heard at Solihull Magistrates’ Court since January last year.
It is now proposed that Solihull Magistrates’ Court formally close and the work remain at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.
Accommodation The court building has a total of six courtrooms and 15 cells. There are five formal courtrooms and one multi functional courtroom. Each formal courtroom has a maximum dock capacity of two defendants and two of the courtrooms have a secure dock facility. The court has no van dock which made the management and listing of custodial cases difficult when the court was operational.
The court building has limited facilities for victims and witnesses in that there are no separate waiting facilities for prosecution and defence witnesses. There have been no issues raised or complaints made since HM Courts & Tribunal Service has ceased to list at Solihull Magistrates’ Court.
Birmingham Magistrates’ Court building contains 21 courtrooms of varying sizes over two floors. Four of the courtrooms have full security docks and five more have docks with direct cell access. Not all courtrooms are now in use and court 5 is regularly used by tribunals. The cells in Birmingham Magistrates’ Court are split into two locations with 19 cells in the main corridor and a further four cells in an area off the main corridor. Birmingham Magistrates’ Court has a secure van dock and prisoners are brought in secure cell vans directly into the custody suite.
Workload Solihull Magistrates’ Court is no longer being used by HM Courts & Tribunals Service.
Location The borough of Solihull is bordered by the M6 and the M40 and split by the M42 representing good transport links between Solihull and Birmingham – this being a distance of approximately 20 miles or 30 minutes driving time.
Public transport via train runs on average five times an hour the journey time taking approximately 25 minutes with a daytime return fare cost of £5.50. Alternatively public transport by bus runs every five minutes with an adult fare being £2.20 with an average time of approximately 35 minutes per journey.
34 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 100% 0-30min 98%
30-60min 0% 30-60min 2%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 0%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 28% 0-30min 2%
30-60min 68% 30-60min 91% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 4% Transport 60-120min 7% >120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
Staff implications There are no HM Courts & Tribunals Service staff based at Solihull Magistrates’ Court.
The court currently houses a number of National Probation Service officers who are not HM Courts & Tribunal Service staff.
Other information Due to a decrease in workload, a public consultation was published in July 2013 which proposed criminal workload ceased to be listed at Solihull Magistrates’ Court. Upon consideration of all responses received to this consultation, the criminal workload previously heard at Solihull Magistrates’ Court was transferred to Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.
The building is a freehold property.
The 2014/2015 operating costs for Solihull Magistrates’ Court were approximately £247,000.
35 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Stafford Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Stafford Magistrates’ Court is one of four magistrates’ courts based in Staffordshire, the other three being located in Burton-upon-Trent, Cannock and Newcastle-under-Lyme.
There are no cell facilities at Stafford Magistrates’ Court. Therefore HM Courts & Tribunals Service is unable to list any custodial criminal adult or youth work at this site.
It is proposed that Stafford Magistrates’ Court closes and hearings moved to North Staffordshire Justice Centre (Newcastle- under-Lyme) or Cannock Magistrates’ Court, and the administrative workload and staff be relocated to Stafford Combined Court where some enabling work would be required to accommodate staff and storage.
The movement of work will provide increased flexibility and efficiency and allow improved utilisation of the court and tribunal estate. The impact on court users will be low as a high proportion of the work contained within Stafford Magistrates’ Court does not require defendants to attend court.
The availability of other court buildings within a short distance of Stafford will make sure good quality facilities for HM Courts & Tribunals Service users are available.
Accommodation Stafford Magistrates’ Court was built in 1981. The court has a total of four courtrooms but does not have any cell accommodation.
The facilities are out dated and the non-availability of cells limits the use of the building. Prison to Court Video Link equipment (PCVL) is not available at this site. There are some access issues at the court for people with disabilities including the witness box and in the public seating areas in courtrooms.
The court provides waiting facilities for prosecution witnesses but there are no separate facilities for defence witnesses. There is a video link facility for intimidated and vulnerable witness to give their evidence on site but this system does not link to other courts and offices. The court has four interview rooms available for private consultation.
The court is compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and there are no security issues.
Stafford Combined Court offers greater benefits and facilities; these include a total of five courtrooms and two District Judge Chambers, and ample consultation rooms. There are nine cells, four of which have either easy access or direct links to the courtrooms. There is a lift which enables access to the upper floor for those with mobility issues. The court is centrally located and is close to the bus and train stations.
The court is compliant with the Equality Act 2010 and there are no security issues.
North Staffordshire Justice Centre (Newcastle-under-Lyme) underwent extensive refurbishment in 2012 including the provision of lift access for prisoners with mobility issues. It has seven courtrooms, four of which have PVCL available and there are secure links to the cells. There are 12 operational cells, four of which are reserved for female and youth offenders. This court is equipped to take category A prisoners.
36 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
There are separate prosecution, defence and witness waiting rooms. This building has disabled access and toilet facilities. There would be no enabling costs at this site.
Cannock Magistrates’ Court building was constructed in 1999 and has three courtrooms, comprising of two standard formal courtrooms with secure docks and secure links to the custody area; the third is an informal family courtroom. There are eight cells in total and prison video link facilities are available. This court can also accommodate category A prisoners. This building has disabled access and toilet facilities. There would be no enabling costs at this site.
Workload The majority of the work undertaken at Stafford Magistrates’ Court is private prosecutions and police led prosecutions such as motoring offences. One out of the four courtrooms is used on a Wednesday and Thursday each week, the court is used for family hearings on an occasional basis.
During the 2014/15 financial year, Stafford Magistrates’ Court was used at approximately 16% of its capacity.
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 94% 0-30min 90%
30-60min 6% 30-60min 10%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 0%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 48% 0-30min 50%
30-60min 39% 30-60min 38% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 8% Transport 60-120min 3% >120min 3% >120min 7%
no data 2% no data 2%
Location Stafford Magistrates’ Court is situated in Stafford town centre. Transportation is good with regular bus services to local towns and there is a mainline station. There is a local bus service from Stafford town centre to Cannock approximately 10 miles away and Newcastle approximately 15 miles away with an average journey time of approximately 35 minutes (adult fare £3.00) and 50 minutes respectively (adult fare is £3.90).
The journey time by car is approximately 25 minutes to Cannock and 35 minutes to Newcastle-under-Lyme.
37 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Travel by train between Stafford and Cannock takes approximately one hour at a cost of £6.40 off peak or £12.30 peak time for a return journey.
The above timings and costings are indicative of journeys between court buildings but it would be the geographical location of the court user or court case that would be taken into consideration when transferring the work.
Staff implications Staffordshire Magistrates’ Court currently accommodates both the Staffordshire Administrative Team and legal advisers, a total of 48 members of staff. The administrative work within the court includes the preparation of cases and resulting for Burton-upon-Trent, Cannock, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stafford courts.
Suitable alternative accommodation for the affected staff has been identified within Stafford Combined Court; this would necessitate the need for some enabling works within the Crown Court building.
Other information Stafford Magistrates’ Court is a freehold property.
The 2014/15 operating costs for Stafford Magistrates’ Court were approximately £213,000.
38 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Worksop Magistrates’ Court
Proposal Worksop Magistrates’ Court is one of three magistrates’ courts in Nottinghamshire, the others being in Mansfield and Nottingham.
It is proposed that Worksop Magistrates’ Court is closed and its workload moved to Mansfield Magistrates’ Court and County Court (‘Mansfield Courthouse’) which could accommodate the workload without any enabling works.
Worksop Magistrates’ Court has two courtrooms and three cells which are linked to the police station. The cells are not fit for purpose and cannot be used. Utilisation at this court is low, the court sits once a week as well as the first Friday of each month. The court building has received a steady rate of investment for repairs over the years in order to maintain the building but the facilities remain inadequate.
Mansfield Courthouse is a modern purpose built court which opened in 1996. It offers excellent quality facilities for HM Courts & Tribunals Service customers. Should the court close it would result in the combining of workload and resources into one larger court centre. This would allow the court to be more responsive and flexible with the throughput and listing of cases. HM Courts & Tribunals Service would then adapt to workflow demands more effectively and improve customer service. An improved, more efficient service can be delivered with the court being utilised more efficiently and effectively.
Accommodation Worksop Magistrates’ Court has two courtrooms. The court building has three cells which are linked to the police station. The cells are not fit for purpose and cannot be used. The court building has received a steady rate of investment for repairs over the years in order to maintain the building but the facilities remain inadequate.
Further investment is required in order to make sure that the air conditioning system is replaced as it is not fit for purpose and not compliant with current legislation. As such the air conditioning equipment will either need replacing in its entirety, or an alternative modern refrigerant sourced. Both options will require financial investment.
The district judges’ room has suffered from severe water damage which has rendered it unusable without extensive repair work being undertaken.
The court building is not fully compliant with the Equality Act 2010. Although wheelchair users are able to access the building they are unable to access the courtrooms located on the first floor. Access to both of the courtrooms is via a flight of stairs. A stair lift has been installed, however this does not provide satisfactory access for wheelchair users.
There is one waiting room available in the building, and the desired segregation of parties can only be achieved if one of the consultation rooms is used as a waiting area. There is no secure car parking for staff and judiciary.
The receiving venue, Mansfield Courthouse, is fully compliant with health and safety regulations. It has excellent accommodation facilities and is compliant with the Equality Act 2010.
39 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Mansfield Courthouse has eight courtrooms and 24 cells. There are separate waiting areas for prosecution and defence witnesses. The building provides improved accommodation for our victims and witnesses, National Probation Service and Crown Prosecution Service colleagues, providing workstations and offices. There is adequate car parking available adjacent to the building in a public car park which is owned and managed by HM Courts & Tribunal Service.
Workload Court sessions are held at Worksop Magistrates’ Court on the each Thursday and the first Friday of every month. All custodial matters are listed and heard at Mansfield Courthouse because the cell facilities at Worksop are not fit for purpose. This means that Worksop Magistrates’ Court is only able to hear cases of non-imprisonable offences instituted by non- police led prosecutors such as television licensing cases and on occasion civil matters.
During the 2014/15 financial year, Worksop Magistrates’ Court was utilised at approximately 34% of its capacity.
Location Mansfield Courthouse is situated approximately 14 miles away from Worksop Magistrates’ Court. The journey time by a car is approximately 30 minutes.
There is a direct train service between Worksop and Mansfield. The travel time by train takes approximately 30 minutes. The approximate cost of an Anytime Day Return is £6.90. Trains between Worksop to Mansfield run hourly.
A bus service operates between Worksop and Mansfield. The minimum travel time by bus is approximately 40 minutes.
Travel time data for this court pre and post closure is shown below:
Before Time % After Time %
0-30min 88% 0-30min 19%
30-60min 12% 30-60min 72%
By Car 60-120min 0% By Car 60 - 120min 10%
>120min 0% >120min 0%
no data 0% no data 0%
0-30min 34% 0-30min 0%
30-60min 38% 30-60min 10% By Public By Public Transport 60-120min 24% Transport 60-120min 69% >120min 4% >120min 21%
no data 0% no data 0%
40 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Staff implications There are no staff permanently based at Worksop Magistrates’ Court.
Other information Worksop Magistrates’ Court building is a freehold property.
The 2014/15 operating costs for Worksop Magistrates’ Court were approximately £145,000.
The closure of Worksop Magistrates’ Court formed part of the Courts Estates Rationalisation Programme in 2010. It was proposed that Worksop and Retford Magistrates’ Courts both close, and that the combined workload be transferred to Mansfield Magistrates’ Court. The combined utilisation of Retford and Worksop Magistrates’ Courts at that time was 78%, against the aim of 80% utilisation and was considered almost full capacity. The decision was made to retain Worksop due to concerns that Mansfield Magistrates’ Court did not have the capacity to absorb the combined workload from both Worksop and Retford. Since then workload has continued to reduce. The court sits one day per week and one afternoon on the first Friday of each month and utilisation is low. Mansfield Courthouse now has the capacity to absorb the workload from Worksop.
41 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Questionnaire
We would welcome responses to the following questions.
Question 1: Do you agree with the proposals? What overall comments would you like to make on the proposals?
Question 2. Will the proposals for the provision of court and tribunal services have a direct impact on you? If yes, please provide further details.
Question 3: Are there other particular impacts of the proposals that HM Courts & Tribunals Service should take into account when making a decision? Please provide details.
Question 4. Our assessment of the likely impacts and supporting analysis is set out in the Impact Assessment accompanying this consultation. Do you have any comments on the evidence used or conclusions reached? Please provide any additional evidence that you believe could be helpful.
Question 5. Are there alternatives to travelling to a physical building that would be a benefit to some users? These could include using technology to engage remotely or the use of other, civic or public buildings for hearings as demand requires. Please explain your answer, with specific examples and evidence of the potential demand for the service where possible.
Question 6: Please provide any additional comments that you have.
Thank you for participating in this consultation exercise.
42 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
About you
Please use this section to tell us about yourself
Full name
Job title or capacity in which you are responding to this consultation exercise (e.g. member of the public etc.) Date
Company name/organisation (if applicable): Address
Postcode
If you would like us to acknowledge receipt of your response, please tick this box (please tick box)
Address to which the acknowledgement should be sent, if different from above
If you are a representative of a group, please tell us the name of the group and give a summary of the people or organisations that you represent.
43 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Contact details/How to respond
Please send your response by 8 October 2015 to: HMCTS Consultation Ministry of Justice Post point 1.13 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Fax: 0870 761 7768 Email: [email protected]
Complaints or comments If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact the Ministry of Justice at the above address.
Extra copies Further paper copies of this consultation can be obtained from this address and it is also available on-line at www.gov.uk/moj
Alternative format versions of this publication can be requested from the Ministry of Justice (please see details above).
Publication of response A paper summarising the responses to this consultation will be published at www.gov.uk/moj
Representative groups Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.
Confidentiality Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).
If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Ministry.
44 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
The Ministry will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.
45 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment for proposals likely to affect businesses, charities, voluntary sector or the public sector – see guidance on: (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/impact- assessment-template-for-government-policies)
46 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal services in the Midlands region – Consultation Paper
Consultation principles
The principles that Government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the consultation principles. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance
47
© Crown copyright 2015 Produced by the Ministry of Justice
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Alternative format version of this report are available on request [email protected]
Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
This consultation begins on 16 July 2015 This consultation ends on 8 October 2015
Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
A consultation produced by the Ministry of Justice. It is also available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/
About this consultation
To: The consultation is aimed at court users, magistracy, judiciary, and anyone else with an interest in the provision of justice arrangements in England and Wales.
Duration: From 16/07/2015 to 8/10/15
Enquiries (including requests HMCTS Consultation for the paper in an alternative Ministry of Justice format) to: Post point 1.13 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 0161 240 5021 Fax: 0870 761 7768 Email: [email protected]
How to respond: Please send your response by 8/10/15 to:
HMCTS Consultation Ministry of Justice Post point 1.13 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Fax: 0870 761 7768 Email: [email protected]
Additional ways to For further information please use the “Enquiries” contact feed in your views: details above.
Response paper: A response to this consultation exercise is due to be published at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/
Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Contents
Foreword 2
Estates Change in the context of court and tribunal reform 4
The Proposals 11
Questionnaire 17
About you 22
Contact details/How to respond 23
1 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Foreword
On 23 June 2015 the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice announced his intention to work with the judiciary to reform the courts and tribunals in England and Wales. Reform will bring quicker and fairer access to justice and create a justice system that reflects the way people use services today. Progress towards a modernised service is already being made. Wi-Fi and digital screens have been introduced into many court buildings and a digital case management system for the administration of criminal cases is well underway.
This is encouraging progress, but more needs to be done. There is a broad consensus that the current system is unsustainable and that we have an opportunity to create a modern, more user-focused and efficient service.
Increased use of technology such as video, telephone and online conferencing will help drive these improvements. Straightforward, transactional matters, such as paying a fine and obtaining probate can be dealt with using digital technology to make the processes as straightforward as filing a tax return. Many straightforward cases do not need face to face hearings which should be reserved for the most sensitive or complex cases.
We can only provide better access to justice if we take difficult decisions to reduce the cost of our estate and reinvest the savings. As the Secretary of State told Parliament on 23 June, this means “a significant number of additional courts will have to close”.
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service operates 460 courts and tribunal hearing centres across England and Wales. The estate costs taxpayers around half a billion pounds each year, and at present, it is underused. Last year over a third of all courts and tribunals were empty for more than fifty per cent of their available hearing time.
This consultation puts forward proposals that aim to reduce surplus capacity by closing those courts and tribunals that are unused or underused, or that are simply unsuitable for the services we need to provide from them.
The buildings being consulted on represent 16% of hearing rooms across the estate which are, on average, used for only a third of their available time. That is equivalent to fewer than 2 out of 5 days in a week. The majority of these courts are not used for at least two thirds of their available time, and one in three are not used three quarters of the time.
Attending court is rare for most people. It will still be the case that, after these changes, over 95% of citizens will be able to reach their required court within an hour by car. This represents a change of just 1 percentage point for Crown and magistrates’ courts and 2 percentage points for County Courts. The proportion of citizens able to reach a tribunal within an hour by car will remain unchanged at 83%. To ensure that access to justice is maintained, even in more rural locations, we are committed to providing alternative ways for users to access our services. That can mean using civic and other public buildings, such as town halls, for hearings instead of underused, poorly-maintained permanent courts.
2 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
We are reforming the courts and tribunal service so that it meets the needs of modern day users. As we bring in digital technology for better and more efficient access to justice, fewer people will need to physically be in a court. This means that we will need fewer buildings, and with many already underused and in poor quality, now is a good time to review the estate.
I welcome views from all interested parties on the consultation.
Shailesh Vara
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Courts and Legal Aid
3 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Estates Change in the context of court and tribunal reform
HM Courts & Tribunals Service is an agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). It is responsible for the administration of the criminal, civil and family courts and tribunals in England and Wales1 and non-devolved tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It operates as a partnership between the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals.
In March 2014, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Senior President of Tribunals announced details of a programme of reform for the courts and tribunals. At the heart of this programme are the use of technology and the principle of proportionality. Straightforward, transactional matters (such as the administration of probate or pleading guilty and paying a fine) can be dealt with using digital technology to make the processes as straightforward as filing a tax return, or renewing car tax online. Straightforward cases do not necessarily need face to face hearings; judges will be able to reserve the full proceedings of a court hearing for the more sensitive or complex cases. Modern technology can be used not just to make the justice system more accessible but also to reduce the costs of the whole justice system by not requiring extensive transportation of prisoners for bail hearings, or the police to take full days off their priority work to sit in a court room.
Ahead of full implementation of the reform programme, we are seeking views on the closure of courts and tribunals which we believe do not meet our ideas of how best to deliver justice in the future.
Access to justice HM Courts & Tribunals Service acknowledges that users should not have to make excessively long or difficult journeys to attend hearings, but we also know that, in an increasingly digital age, users do not always need to attend hearings in person in order to access the justice system. Delivering effective access to justice does not therefore necessarily mean providing physical access to a building or require us to have a purpose- built court or tribunal in every local area. We already have well established alternative ways that users can interact with our services. There are examples of this: enabling police officers to give evidence over a live link; processes to enable victims, witnesses and defendants to attend hearings over video link; and users in some jurisdictions having cases progressed or considered through telephone hearings or on papers meaning that they don’t need to attend a hearing in person at all. Where attendance at a hearing is needed a purpose-built hearing centre is only one option. Other public buildings could be used for hearings where security requirements are low.
We are fully committed to providing alternative provision to make sure that access to justice is maintained and the regional consultations include further proposals for establishing these alternatives. We know that some council buildings are used for hearings that take place outside of the legal system, for example school admission and exclusion appeals. This may provide a particular opportunity to use common equipment and hearing spaces. We are
1 Some tribunals which are part of HM Courts & Tribunals Service in England are devolved to the Welsh Government in Wales.
4 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
very keen to hear from consultees on alternative provision, through civic or other public buildings is required and, if so, what form it might take to meet their needs.
The consultation This is a national consultation on the provision of the court and tribunal estate in England and Wales. HM Courts & Tribunals Service manages the operation of courts and tribunals through seven regions in England and Wales and the consultation includes annexes covering London, the South East, the South West, the Midlands, the North East, North West and Wales.
The consultation covers the proposed closure of: 57 magistrates’ courts 19 county courts 2 2 crown courts 4 tribunal hearing centres 9 combined courts
Abergavenny Magistrates’ Court and Caerphilly Magistrates’ Court were subject to a separate public consultation in June 2014. Closure of Abergavenny Magistrates’ Court and Caerphilly Magistrates’ Court was announced on 9 July 2015.
The closure of Rhyl County Court was announced in 2010 as part of the Court Estate Reform Programme. If the proposed closure of Prestatyn Magistrates’ Court is taken forward, the work would be moved to Llandudno Magistrates’ Court and the Prestatyn Magistrates’ building would be retained as a civil, family, and tribunals centre enabling work to be transferred from Rhyl and the building closed.
To provide users with an overview of all proposed change to the estate, the consultation also includes information on where we plan to relocate courts within the same town or city. Local stakeholders will be notified of these changes when they take place. We are not consulting on our plans to integrate courts. This is where we move the location of a court to another court building in the same local area and where there is limited impact on service provision. Integration plans cover 31 buildings, comprising of: 2 magistrates’ courts 11 county courts 2 crown courts 15 tribunal hearing centres 1 combined court
2 Reference in this document to magistrates’ courts, county courts, crown courts and combined courts refers to buildings (a singular structure providing the physical hearing rooms for criminal, civil, family and tribunal cases) which house that activity in a particular location. Strictly, legislation provides that there is a single crown court, county court and family court.
5 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
This represents the following reductions in purpose-built hearing room capacity: 257 magistrates’ court rooms, representing 23% of the current total of magistrates’ court rooms 21 crown court rooms, representing 4% of the current total of crown court rooms 139 county court rooms, representing 17% of the current total of county court rooms 63 tribunal rooms, representing 13% of the current total of tribunal rooms
The requirement for estate reform HM Courts & Tribunals Service currently relies on a paper-based system. Cases are largely resolved through physical attendance at hearings. A network of courts and tribunals remains a key component of the service provided.
The estate is made up of a complex picture of freehold, leasehold and casual hire arrangements occupying 460 court and tribunal buildings. In addition there are a number of administrative and support buildings. These were inherited when the organisation was formed in 2011 from the merger of HM Courts Service and the Tribunals Service. Ownership and use of court and tribunal buildings has developed piecemeal over many years. This is an opportunity to stand back and reconsider the existing arrangements and to rationalise the estate so that best value for money is provided for users and taxpayers alike. The courts and tribunals estate costs taxpayers approximately £500 million each year.
There is a significant variation in the standard of our current court and tribunal estate. The estate ranges from historic, listed buildings to rented floors in modern office blocks. Some new builds were completed to a high standard, but many older buildings are unfit for purpose because of shortcomings in the original design, dilapidations, a backlog of maintenance or changes in the way in which our courts and tribunals now operate.
These proposals will provide the organisation with a reduced and sustainable estate from which to deliver our business, increase efficiency, and improve our services. Disposal of surplus estate would provide potential opportunities for development of residential and commercial space benefiting local communities.
Utilisation of the courts and tribunals estate There is evidence to suggest that the hearing rooms within our estate are significantly under-utilised.
At a national level in the financial year 2014/15, recorded utilisation levels by jurisdiction were: Crown courts 71% County courts 53% Magistrates’ courts 47% Tribunal hearing rooms 71% [2013/14 data]
HM Courts & Tribunals Service calculates utilisation by assessing the workload (in hours) as a proportion of the maximum capacity of the estate. The maximum capacity is calculated by multiplying the number of courtrooms per jurisdiction by five hours per day and 248 working days in the year. The utilisation levels of individual courts are included in the regional annexes attached to this consultation.
6 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Compared to the financial year 2013/14 there has been a small increase in utilisation levels in the Crown Courts (from 70%), and a decrease in the utilisation levels in the county courts (from 56%) and magistrates’ courts (from 55%).
Overall, court utilisation levels remain unacceptably low and, while some initiatives have reduced the workload dealt with in our courts, in general our estate contains too many courtrooms, many of which cannot be used flexibly or are in poor condition. As we increasingly adopt digital ways of working, and reduce the requirement on the part of users physically to attend hearings in person, the need for courtrooms will diminish further.
In the regional annexes we set out how we can ensure that work from any site that could close can be accommodated in another site or sites.
Deciding which courts to include in the proposals To ensure we deliver business effectively and meet our future strategic requirements, HM Courts & Tribunals Service has applied a set of principles against which the proposals in this consultation were developed.
The principles are:
Ensuring Access to Justice To ensure continued access to justice when assessing the impact of possible closures on both professional and lay court and tribunal users, taking into account journey times for users, the challenges of rural access and any mitigating action, including having facilities at local civic centres and other buildings to ensure local access, modern ICT and more flexible listing, when journeys will be significantly increased;
To take into account the needs of users and in particular, victims, witnesses and those who are vulnerable.
To support the requirements of other agencies such as the Crown Prosecution Service, Social Services, Police Forces and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS).
Delivering Value for Money To reduce the current and future cost of running the estate.
To maximise the capital receipts from surplus estate for reinvestment in HM Courts & Tribunals Service.
Enabling Efficiency in the longer term To reduce the reliance on buildings with poor facilities and to remove from the estate buildings that are difficult and expensive either to improve or to upgrade;
To move towards an estate with buildings which are larger and facilitate the more efficient and flexible listing of court and tribunal business whilst also giving users more certainty when their cases will be heard;
7 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
To increase the ability to use the estate flexibly across the criminal jurisdiction and separately across the Civil, Family and Tribunal (CFT) jurisdictions;
To move towards an estate that provides dedicated hearing centres, seeking opportunities to concentrate back office function where they can be carried out most efficiently.
To improve the efficient use of the estate by seeking to improve whole system efficiency, taking advantage of modernised communication methods (wi-fi and video links) and adopting business processes to increase efficiency and effectiveness.
To increase the efficient use of the estate wherever possible irrespective of current administrative boundaries
These principles differ from those used in the Court Estate Reform Programme (CERP) in 2010. CERP ran from 2010 to 2014 and resulted in the closure of 140 court buildings. The principles have been updated to align with the strategic intentions of wider court and tribunal reform, current requirements for the administration of justice, and financial constraints. Crown courts and tribunal hearing centres were not included in CERP.
The proposal is for workload from surplus sites to transfer to existing courts and tribunals or to take place in civic or other public buildings. The regional annexes set out the proposed site where the work could transfer to, in the event of that court or tribunal hearing centre closing.
In order to achieve a radical transformation of the justice system, any investment must be targeted and sequenced across all three key areas of ICT, estates and business processes to create the efficiencies that will allow HM Courts & Tribunals Service to modernise its current practices and to adopt more streamlined ways of working. We are therefore, as a first priority, addressing the current surplus capacity within the HM Courts & Tribunals Service estate. This will enable us to use the remaining estate more intelligently and flexibly, to reduce our running costs, to focus our investment on improving the estate we need for the future and to increase the multifunctional court space – allowing different court and tribunal jurisdictions to share locations. The intention is that capital receipts from the sale of any surplus assets would be reinvested as part of the funding for the reform programme.
The impact of these proposals The consultation includes a summary of the initial assessment of the impact on travel times (see regional consultation documents and the Impact Assessment). These have been modelled on the catchment area of the court being proposed for closure and the travel times, by car and public transport, to the alternative court(s). The model makes an assessment for all potential court users and includes the additional travel time from rural or suburban areas into town centres. It will, therefore, often show longer travel times than the direct journey between the two court locations.
Through this consultation, we are seeking views on the impact of the proposals on the travel times of user groups and individual users. In particular, we are keen to ensure continuing access to justice for those who live in rural communities and we would welcome hearing from such users with their ideas of how they might, in future, better and more easily access the justice system. This might be by digital means or by, for instance, the occasional use of public buildings other than present day court or tribunal buildings.
8 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
This consultation is accompanied by an Impact Assessment of the proposals. It includes an assessment of the equality impact of the proposals, including at a regional level. We will work with the Departmental Trade Unions throughout the consultation period to understand the potential impact on our staff, which will feed into the decision making process. At the same time, our staff will also have the opportunity to put forward their views through the formal consultation process. HM Courts & Tribunals Service complies fully with equality legislation and codes of practice.
Improving the Estate We recognise that for many of these proposals there may be a requirement to invest in some of the buildings which would be receiving work from a closing court or tribunal. This investment may be required to create space for the public, for our staff and for additional hearings.
We are also committed to investing in those sites that will provide an ongoing service to the public. For example, by improving access for any users with a disability, or by improving general upkeep and addressing outstanding maintenance issues; and by seeking to improve the sustainability of the retained estate. Whilst this investment is part of our reform plans, each case will need to be assessed to make sure it delivers value for money.
Local justice areas and listing changes Local justice areas were created by the Courts Act (2003) and are used to determine which magistrates’ court should hear a particular case. They do not apply to any other court or tribunal jurisdiction.
This consultation does not include any proposals for changes to local justice areas (LJA). Where the proposal to close a court relates to the only magistrates’ court in a LJA, then this is noted in the consultation. Any changes to LJA boundaries required as a result of changes in the magistrates’ court estate will be subject to separate local stakeholder engagement by the appropriate Judicial Business Group (JBG)3.
Changes to court estate may also require a review of listing arrangements. The JBG will undertake local stakeholder engagement exercises proportionate to any proposed change.
Responding to the consultation Responses to the questions in the consultation will allow us to ensure that courts and tribunals continue to be aligned to workload; that communities continue to have access to court buildings where they need to attend or through alternative methods; and that cases are heard in buildings with suitable facilities.
The consultation seeks the views of everyone with an interest in local justice arrangements. The Lord Chancellor will take all views expressed into account before making any decision on which courts or tribunals ought to be closed and when.
3 The Judicial Business Group is a body made up of judges, magistrates, justices’ clerks and court administrators with responsibility for ensuring that the judicial business of the court is conducted in a speedy and efficient manner in the interests of justice. Further information can be found at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Protocols/protocol- responsibilities-judicial-leadership-management-mcs.pdf
9 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
This consultation is being conducted in line with the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office in 2012 and falls within the scope of the Guidance. The consultation criteria, which can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation- principles-guidance, have been followed. It will run for 12 weeks to enable effective consultation due to the scale of change proposed. In order to respond quickly to changes in operational requirements, future consultations regarding smaller scale proposals are likely to run for a shorter period and focus on known court users.
This consultation and the consultation stage Impact Assessment are also available at www.gov.uk/moj.
10 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
The Proposals
The courts and tribunals proposed for closure are listed below.
The consultation is divided into seven sections, one for each HM Courts & Tribunals Service region in England and Wales. Details of the proposed closures are included in the regional annexes (A-G) that accompany this document. We welcome comments on individual courts and tribunals, regions or on the consultation overall. A questionnaire is included in this document on page 21 and in each regional annex.
The list below sets out all the courts covered in this consultation because closure is proposed and integration is planned.
London Bow County Court Feltham Magistrates’ Court Greenwich Magistrates’ Court Hammersmith County Court (formerly West London County Court) Lambeth County Court Pocock Street Tribunal Hearing Centre Richmond-upon-Thames Magistrates’ Court Tottenham Magistrates’ Court Waltham Forest Magistrates’ Court Woolwich County Court
Midlands Birmingham Youth Court Burton-upon-Trent Magistrates’ Court Buxton Magistrates’ and County Court Corby Magistrates’ Court Grantham Magistrates’ Court Hinckley Magistrates’ Court Kettering County Court Kettering Magistrates’ Court Sandwell Magistrates’ Court
11 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Shrewsbury Magistrates’ Court Skegness Magistrates’ Court Solihull Magistrates’ Court Stafford Magistrates’ Court Worksop Magistrates’ Court
North East Consett Magistrates’ Court Halifax County Court and Family Court Halifax (Calderdale) Magistrates’ and Family Court Hartlepool Magistrates’ Court and County Court Morpeth County Court Rotherham Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Family Court Scunthorpe Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Family Court Wakefield Magistrates’ Court
North West Accrington County Court Accrington Magistrates’ Court Bolton County Court and Family Court Bury Magistrates’ Court and County Court Kendal Magistrates’ Court and County Court Macclesfield County Court Macclesfield Magistrates’ Court Oldham County Court Oldham Magistrates’ Court Ormskirk Magistrates’ Court and Family Court Runcorn (Halton) Magistrates’ Court St Helens Magistrates’ Court and County Court Stockport Magistrates’ Court and County Court Tameside County Court Trafford Magistrates’ Court and Altrincham County Court
12 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Warrington County Court West Cumbria Magistrates’ Court and County Court
South East Aylesbury Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Family Court Basildon Social Security and Child Support Tribunal (Acorn House) Bedford and Mid Beds Magistrates’ Court and Family Court and Bedford County Court and Family Court Bicester Magistrates’ Court and Family Court Bury St. Edmunds Magistrates’ Court and Family Court and Bury St. Edmunds Crown Court Chichester Combined Court (Crown and County) Chichester Magistrates’ Court Colchester County Court and Family Court Colchester County Court Offices Dartford Magistrates’ Court Dover Magistrates’ Court Eastbourne Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Family Court Harlow Magistrates’ Court Kings Lynn County Court and Family Court Lowestoft Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Family Court Redhill Magistrates’ Court and Family Court and Reigate County Court and Family Court St Albans County Court Tunbridge Wells County Court and Family Court Watford Magistrates’ Court and Family Court West Berkshire (Newbury) Magistrates’ Court
South West Barnstaple Crown Court Bath Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Family Court or North Avon (Yate) Magistrates’ Court Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court Cheltenham Rivershill House Tribunal Chippenham Magistrates’ Court, Civil Court and Family Court
13 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Dorchester Crown Court Fareham Magistrates’ Court Gloucester Magistrates’ Court North Avon (Yate) Magistrates’ Court or Bath Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Family Court Stroud Magistrates’ Court Torquay Magistrates’ Court
Wales Brecon Law Courts Bridgend Law Courts Carmarthen Civil, Family, Tribunal and Probate Hearing Centre Carmarthen Law Courts (The Guildhall) Dolgellau Crown and Magistrates’ Court Holyhead Magistrates’ Court Llangefni Civil and Family Court Neath and Port Talbot Civil and Family Court Pontypridd Magistrates’ Court Prestatyn Magistrates’ Court Wrexham Tribunal (Rhyd Broughton)
In addition to proposed closures in this consultation the following integrations will be taking place.
Midlands Chesterfield County Court to be integrated within Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court (Chesterfield Justice Centre) Chesterfield Tribunal (St Mary’s Court) to be integrated within Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court (Chesterfield Justice Centre) Hereford County Court and Family Court to be integrated within Hereford Magistrates’ Court Telford County Court and Family Court to be integrated within Telford Magistrates’ Court
North East Doncaster County Court to be integrated within Doncaster Magistrates’ Court Doncaster Tribunal (Portland Place) to be integrated within Doncaster Crown Court
14 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Durham Elvet House Tribunal to be integrated within other tribunal sites within the County Durham estate, including Durham County and Family Court East Parade Sheffield Tribunal to be integrated within Sheffield Combined Court Harrogate County Court to be integrated within Harrogate Magistrates’ Court Middlesbrough Tribunal Hearing Centre to be integrated within Teesside Magistrates’ Court Quayside House Newcastle Tribunal to be integrated within North Shields (Kings Court) Tribunal Wilberforce Court (Hull Employment Tribunal Centre) to be integrated within Hull Magistrates’ Court and Hull Combined Court
North West Bolton Magistrates’ Court to be integrated within Bolton Combined Court Lancaster County Court to be integrated within Lancaster Magistrates’ Court Warrington Magistrates’ Court to be integrated within Warrington Combined Court
South East Aylesbury Crown Court to be integrated within Aylesbury Magistrates’ Court, County Court and Family Hearing Centre building Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal (Government Buildings) to be integrated within Bury St Edmunds County Court Cambridge Social Security and Child Support Tribunal (Eastbrook House) – Cambridge Tribunal to be integrated within Cambridge Civil Justice centre and Cambridge Magistrates’ Court Cambridge Residential Property Tribunal Service to be integrated within Cambridge Civil Justice Centre Norwich Employment Tribunal (Eliot House) integrated within Norwich Magistrates’ Court Southend County Court and Family Court to be integrated within Southend Crown and Magistrates’ Court
South West Aldershot and Farnham County Court to be integrated within Aldershot Magistrates’ Court Arcade Chambers (Aldershot Tribunal) to be integrated within Aldershot Magistrates’ Court Plymouth St Catherine’s House (Plymouth Tribunal) to be integrated within Plymouth Combined and Plymouth Magistrates’ Court Southampton Western Range and Barrack Block to be integrated within Southampton Magistrates’ Court Taunton Blackdown House (Taunton Tribunal) to be integrated within Taunton Deane Magistrates’ Court
15 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
The Crescent Centre (Bristol Tribunal) to be integrated within Bristol Civil Justice Centre Weymouth and Dorchester Combined Court offices to be integrated within Weymouth Magistrates Court Yeovil County Court to be integrated within South Somerset and Mendip Magistrates Court (Yeovil)
Wales Caernarfon Civil and Family Court to be integrated within Caernarfon Criminal Justice Centre Swansea Crown Court (Guildhall) to be integrated within Swansea Crown Court (St Helens)
16 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Questionnaire
We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper.
Question 1: Do you agree with the proposals? What overall comments would you like to make on the proposals?
Question 2. Will the proposals for the provision of court and tribunal services have a direct impact on you? If yes, please provide further details.
Question 3: Are there other particular impacts of the proposals that HM Courts & Tribunals Service should take into account when making a decision? Please provide details.
Question 4. Our assessment of the likely impacts and supporting analysis is set out in the Impact Assessment accompanying this consultation. Do you have any comments on the evidence used or conclusions reached? Please provide any additional evidence that you believe could be helpful.
Question 5. Are there alternatives to travelling to a physical building that would be a benefit to some users? These could include using technology to engage remotely or the use of other, civic or public buildings for hearings as demand requires. Please explain your answer, with specific examples and evidence of the potential demand for the service where possible.
Question 6: Please provide any additional comments that you have.
Thank you for participating in this consultation exercise.
17 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
About you
Please use this section to tell us about yourself
Full name
Job title or capacity in which you are responding to this consultation exercise (e.g. member of the public etc.) Date
Company name/organisation (if applicable): Address
Postcode
If you would like us to acknowledge receipt of your response, please tick this box (please tick box)
Address to which the acknowledgement should be sent, if different from above
If you are a representative of a group, please tell us the name of the group and give a summary of the people or organisations that you represent.
18 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Contact details/How to respond
Please send your response by 8 October 2015 to: HMCTS Consultation Ministry of Justice Post point 1.13 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ
Fax: 0870 761 7768 Email: [email protected]
Complaints or comments If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact the Ministry of Justice at the above address.
Extra copies Further paper copies of this consultation can be obtained from this address and it is also available on-line at www.gov.uk/moj
Alternative format versions of this publication can be requested from the Ministry of Justice (please see details above).
Publication of response The response to this consultation exercise will be available on-line at www.gov.uk/moj.
Representative groups Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.
Confidentiality Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).
If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Ministry.
19 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
The Ministry will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.
20 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Impact Assessment
Impact Assessment for proposals likely to affect businesses, charities, voluntary sector or the public sector – see guidance on: (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/impact- assessment-template-for-government-policies)
21 Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales
Consultation principles
The principles that Government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the consultation principles. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance
22
© Crown copyright 2015 Produced by the Ministry of Justice
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Alternative format version of this report are available on request [email protected]
Policy and Scrutiny
Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills, Director responsible for Democratic Services
Report to: Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee Date: 2 September 2015 Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee Subject: Work Programme KeyDecision decision? Reference: No Summary: This report enables the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee to consider its Work Programme for the coming year.
Actions Required: To consider and comment on the Work Programme as set out in Appendix A to this report.
1. Background
At every meeting of the Committee, Members are invited to consider their future Work Programme and to agree on items to be included in the Work Programme. The current work programme for the Committee is attached at Appendix A to this report.
Scrutiny Activity Definitions
Set out below are the definitions used to describe the types of scrutiny, relating to the items on the Work Programme:
Budget Scrutiny - The Committee is scrutinising the previous year’s budget, the current year’s budget or proposals for the future year’s budget.
Pre-Decision Scrutiny - The Committee is scrutinising a proposal, prior to a decision on the proposal by the Executive, the Executive Councillor or a senior officer.
Performance Scrutiny - The Committee is scrutinising periodic performance, issue specific performance or external inspection reports.
Policy Development - The Committee is involved in the development of policy, usually at an early stage, where a range of options are being considered. Consultation - The Committee is responding to (or making arrangements to) respond to a consultation, either formally or informally. This includes pre- consultation engagement.
Status Report - The Committee is considering a topic for the first time where a specific issue has been raised or members wish to gain a greater understanding.
Update Report - The Committee is scrutinising an item following earlier consideration.
Scrutiny Review Activity - This includes discussion on possible scrutiny review items; finalising the scoping for the review; monitoring or interim reports; approval of the final report; and the response to the report.
2. Conclusion
To consider and comment on the Work Programme.
3. Consultation
a) Policy Proofing Actions Required n/a
4. Appendices
These are listed below and attached at the back of the report Appendix A Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee Work Programme
5. Background Papers
No background papers within Section 100D of the Local Government Act 1972 were used in the preparation of this report.
This report was written by Louise Tyers, who can be contacted on 01522 552102 or [email protected]. Appendix A COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Chairman: Councillor Chris Brewis Vice Chairman: Councillor Linda Wootten
14 October 2015 Item Contributor Purpose Domestic Abuse Update Karen Shooter, County Domestic Update Report Abuse Manager Substance Misuse Tony McGinty, Consultant in Public Update Report Treatment Health Recommissioning Recruitment and Retention Dave Ramscar, Chief Fire Officer Status Report of Retained Firefighters Sitting as the Crime and Disorder Committee Community Safety Mark Housley, County Officer Update Report Priorities Progress Public Protection Integrated Offender Mark Housley, County Officer Status Report Management Public Protection
25 November 2015 Item Contributor Purpose Libraries Procurement – Sophie Reeve, Chief Procurement Pre-Decision Scrutiny Award of Contract Officer (Executive 1 December 2015) Youth Offending Update Andy Cook, Head of Youth Update Report Offending Service Quarter 2 Performance – 1 Jasmine Sodhi, Performance and Performance Scrutiny July to 30 September Equalities Manager 2015 Fire and Rescue Nick Borrill, Deputy Chief Fire Update Report Statement of Assurance Officer 2014/15
13 January 2016 Item Contributor Purpose Lincoln Prison Update Peter Wright, Governor HMP Update Report Lincoln Budget Proposals 2016/17 Michelle Grady, Assistant Head of Budget Scrutiny Finance Appendix A
13 January 2016 Item Contributor Purpose Joint Ambulance Dave Ramscar, Chief Fire Officer Update Report Conveyance Project
Prevent Strategy Update Nicole Hilton, Community Assets Update Report and Resilience Commissioning Manager
For more information about the work of the Community and Public Safety Scrutiny Committee please contact Louise Tyers, Scrutiny Officer, on 01522 552102 or by e-mail at [email protected]