ALLEY GATING PANEL – 05.11.2007
ALLEY GATING PANEL
5 NOVEMBER 2007
PRESENT: Councillors Rayner (Chairman), Bicknell, Hendry, Mrs Newbound, Stretton, and Werner.
Non-Member: Councillor Grey
Officers: Rupert Avery, Lorna Bowry, Stephen Brown, Amy Cannon, Ian Hunt, and Brian Martin.
Also Present: Inspector Mark Millward and Inspector John McDonald (Thames Valley Police)
Local Residents Addressing The Meeting: Joanne Gurney, Mr McKee, and Mr Davis.
PART I
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Werner declared a personal interest in relation to the application for alley gating in
Headington Close, Pinkneys Green, as his mother lived at 1 Tavistock Close. He remained in the meeting
for this item.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
RESOLVED: That the order of procedure for hearings of applications by the Alley Gating
Panel, as set out in the Agenda, be agreed, subject to adding the words ‘and interested
parties’, after the words ‘local residents’.
ALLEY GATING – MURRIN ROAD, PINKNEYS GREEN
The Chairman welcomed all parties to the meeting, introduced the Panel Members and explained the
procedure, which all indicated they understood.
Community Safety Officers
Mr Martin, the Community Safety Co-ordinator, introduced the application for Members to consider. The
Panel noted that the consultation period for this application had run from 19 April 2007 to 31 May 2007,
and 4 responses had been received objecting to the proposal to gate the alley in Murrin Road. These were
from the Open Spaces Society, The Ramblers Association, Mr N Iley, and The Local Access Forum.
Members were informed that 19 responses had been received in favour of the proposal, and these
consisted of households of Murrin Road and Courthouse Road, together with Thames Valley Police.
i
ALLEY GATING PANEL – 05.11.2007
Members also noted that Thames Valley Police were strongly in favour of alley gates being implemented
in this case, and had submitted that it would have a direct positive impact on crime and the quality of life
of the residents of Murrin Road. In addition, Mr Martin explained that there were a number of factors
which supported the proposal to gate this alley and these were:
 There had been a significant number of crime reports to substantiate the request, supporting
the case that anti-social behaviour was an issue in and around the alley. There had been 23
reports between May 2006 and February 2007, and a significant number before and since.
 On inspection, the alley was littered with glass alcohol bottles, metal cans, crisp packets and
other litter, and there was also graffiti, damage to fences and the footpath. This supported the
complaints from residents about anti-social behaviour taking place in the alley.
 The alternative route, should the alley be closed, was the same distance, if not shorter.
In light of all the above factors, Mr Martin concluded by recommending to the Panel that the alley in
Murrin Road should be gated.
Highways Officer
Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, reported that he had been involved in the
investigations and surveys in relation to this proposal, and in view of the evidence presented by the
Police, commented that there was a case in this instance for the alley to be gated.
Questions to the Community Safety and Highways Officers
Councillor Mrs Newbound asked if the litter found in the alley was cleared, and the Community Safety
Co-ordinator confirmed that it was.
Representations From Police
Inspector Millward commented on the level of anti-social behaviour that had occurred in the area over
Halloween, and a large amount of litter, including glass bottles and cans had occurred. The Panel noted
that Police Community Support Officers had been present all night to address the anti-social behaviour
problems, and Inspector Millward also referred to the invaluable help from the local residents. However,
he also commented that this level of resource was not sustainable. In light of these issues, together with
the number of crime reports, Inspector Millward concluded by informing the Panel that the Police
supported the gating of this alley.
Questions to Police Representatives
There were no questions.
Representations By Local Residents and Interested Parties
Joanne Gurney, local resident, addressed the Panel and highlighted the anti-social behaviour that was
occurring in this alley, including scooters being driven at 2.00am. She also asked how long would it take
ii
ALLEY GATING PANEL – 05.11.2007
for gates to be installed if this was the decision that was taken. The frustrations of the local residents
were also outlined, in relation to the huge disruption being caused to them as a result of the anti-social
behaviour and crime activity.
Mr McKee, a local resident, also addressed the Panel and asked what time would the gates be closed if
they were installed. He also commented that the local residents were in favour of the gates being closed
for 24 hours a day.
Questions to Local Residents/Interested Parties
Prior to asking questions, the Chairman invited the Highways Officer to answer the questions raised by
the local residents, and it was noted that there was an anticipated 6 week lead-in time for the gates from
the suppliers. It was also noted that the gates would be substantial high strength security gates, 6 feet
high.
Councillor Werner asked the local residents to outline examples of the anti-social behaviour being
undertaken, and the local residents reported that this had included car crime, i.e. cars being damaged with
keys, windows being smashed, etc, scooters in the early hours of the morning, youths congregating in
gangs and drinking alcohol and dealing in drugs. The local residents also commented that it was a 24 hour
problem.
At this point, Inspector Millward commented that the Police view was that this was a small cul-de-sac and
if the alley was gated, there would be no reason for the youths to gather at this point.
Summary From Community Safety and Highway Officers
Mr Martin, the Community Safety Co-ordinator summarised by recommending that, in light of the
evidence that had been presented, the alley in Murrin Road should be gated 24 hours a day, all year
round.
Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, summarised that, as a result of the evidence from
the Police, there was a strong case for the alley to be closed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
At this point, the Legal Advisor reported that, should the alley gating order be agreed, there would be a
6-week objection period, commencing from the date of the Panel’s decision, following which, if no
objections were received, the gates would be installed as soon as possible. Should an objection be
received, this would be referred to the High Court for determination.
Decision
The Panel then retired to consider the application and evidence that had been presented. At 11.07am,
the Panel reconvened to inform all present of their decision, and it was
RESOLVED: That the application for alley gating in Murrin Road, Pinkneys Green,
Maidenhead, be agreed, and that the alley be gated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and
that the order be implemented with immediate effect.
iii
ALLEY GATING PANEL – 05.11.2007
ALLEY GATING – HEADINGTON CLOSE, PINKNEYS GREEN, MAIDENHEAD
The Chairman welcomed all parties to the meeting, introduced the Panel Members and explained the
procedure, which all indicated they understood.
Community Safety Officers
Mr Martin, the Community Safety Co-ordinator, introduced the application for Members to consider.
The Panel noted that the consultation period for this application had run from 19 April 2007 to 31 May
2007, and 6 responses had been received objecting to the proposal to gate the alley in Headington
Close. These were from Thames Valley Police, The Open Spaces Society, The Ramblers Association,
local residents, and The Local Access Forum. Members were informed that 15 responses had been
received in favour of the proposal, and these consisted of households of Tavistock Close, Headington
Close, and Courthouse Road.
Mr Martin also referred to the very sad instance that had occurred last year, when a lady had died
following a burglary in this area.
Members were informed that the Police did not feel that the gating of this alley would have a
substantial benefit to the local community. In addition, Mr Martin outlined some additional factors,
which did not support the gating of this alley, as follows:
 There was a lack of crime reports to substantiate the request – 14 reports in 11 years, and
although some of these had been serious, there was not enough evidence to suggest that gating
the alleys would have prevented the crimes from taking place.
 The alley did not have high recorded levels of anti-social behaviour.
 The alternative route, should the alley be closed, is much longer, is of poor quality and much of
it is along more alley ways.
In light of the above factors, Mr Martin concluded by stating that the evidence did not appear to be
strong enough to support the gating of the alley.
Highways Officer
Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, reported that he had been involved in the
investigations and surveys in relation to this proposal, and in view of the evidence presented in this case,
commented that there was not enough evidence to support a case for the alley to be gated. Mr Brown also
commented that the alternative route for walking, if the alley was gated, was longer.
Questions to the Community Safety and Highways Officers
Councillor Werner expressed surprise at Mr Martin’s comments about the death last year, and Mr Martin
responded by stating that what he was saying was that the burglary may still have happened if the alley
had been gated. Councillor Werner also questioned Mr Brown about the alternative route should this alley
be gated, and that it would be a longer walk. Mr Brown commented that the alternative route was also not
iv
ALLEY GATING PANEL – 05.11.2007
well lit or made up. Councillor Werner responded by stating that the alternative route was no longer, and
that the alley in Headington Close had a ‘dog-leg’, which allowed people to hide behind, whereas the
alternative alley was straight and better to walk along.
Councillor Bicknell asked the Community Safety Officers how many residents had responded from
Headington Close, and the Panel was informed that 10 responses had been submitted.
Representations From Police
Inspector Millward reported that the crime figures that had been reported to the Police could not support
closure of the alley. In relation to the death resulting from the burglary, he also commented that it was
difficult to know whether the alley in Headington Close had contributed to the burglary taking place.
Questions to Police Representatives
Councillor Werner expressed surprise at Inspector Millward’s remarks about the burglary and the alley,
and Inspector Millward commented that there was no way of knowing for sure whether the alley
contributed to the burglary.
Representations By Local Residents and Interested Parties
Mr Davis, a local resident, commented that his garden backed on to the alley in Headington Close. He
stated that he agreed with the comments by Councillor Werner, and that the alley was used as a ‘getaway’ for youths. Mr Davis also referred to graffiti in the alley, and commented that it was a meeting
place for drug users. He also commented that he had had handbags and wallets thrown over his fence
from the alley and had also seen stolen bicycles. He urged the Panel to close the alley 24 hours a day.
Questions To Local Residents/Interested Parties
Councillor Werner asked Mr Davis if this was a 24 hour problem, and Mr Davis confirmed it was. The
Chairman asked Mr Davis if ‘genuine users’ used the alley, i.e. mothers with pushchairs, etc, and Mr
Davis commented that local residents very rarely used it, as they were too frustrated of what was
happening in the alley.
Summary From Community Safety and Highways Officers
Mr Martin, the Community Safety Co-ordinator, summarised by referring the Panel to his opening
remarks, and the factors which he had outlined in recommending that there was not strong enough
evidence to support the gating of this alley.
Mr Brown, the Head of Highways and Engineering, reiterated his earlier remarks, in that in view of the
evidence presented in this case, there was not enough evidence to support a case for the alley to be gated.
At this point, the Legal Advisor reported that, should the alley gating order be agreed, there would be a 6week objection period, commencing from the date of the Panel’s decision, following which, if no
objections were received, the gates would be installed as soon as possible. Should an objection be
v
ALLEY GATING PANEL – 05.11.2007
received, this would be referred to the High Court for determination. The Legal Advisor also sought
clarification from the Police in relation to whether they were formally objecting to the proposal, and
Inspector Millward commented that, whilst not formally objecting, the Police did not support the gating
of this alley.
Decision
The Panel then retired to consider the application and evidence that had been presented. At 11.55am, the
Panel reconvened to inform all present of their decision, and it was
RESOLVED: That the application for alley gating in Headington Close, Pinkneys
Green, Maidenhead, be agreed, and that the alley be gated 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, and that the order be implemented with immediate effect.
MEETING
The meeting, which began at 10.30am, ended at 11.58am.
vi