CRIME AND ANI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ASSOCIATED WITH
FOOTPATHS
EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
LEISURE: COUNCILLOR BARRY COPPINGER
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT: IAN PARKER
19 DECEMBER 2006
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.
The evaluation of the Keswick Grove/Trimdon Avenue footpath closure to address
anti-social behaviour and to propose options to deal with future requests following
changes in legislation.
BACKGROUND AND EXTERNAL CONSULTATION
2.
Footpaths are often associated with crime and antisocial behaviour. There is a
demand from some residents to close footpaths for this reason. This report
proposes that expert groups established by the Safer Middlesbrough Partnership
tackle the problems associated with such routes.
3.
In December 1999 Middlesbrough’s first alleygating scheme was installed. At the
time there was no consensus nationally as to the most appropriate legal process
for closing alleys and in Middlesbrough Traffic Regulation Orders were used.
4.
In July 2003 the Executive considered evidence of the serious and persistent
nature of the criminal and anti-social behaviour incidents occurring in the vicinity of
the footpath between Trimdon Avenue and Keswick Grove. An application was
made to the Secretary of State to designate the area adjacent to this footpath, to
enable the highway authority to make a stopping up order ‘to prevent or reduce
crime, which would otherwise disrupt the life of the community’.
D:\106752874.doc
5.
Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the Council has a duty to do all it
reasonably can to reduce crime and disorder in its local area. Permanent highway
closure is one of the tools available to address these issues, but the Trimdon Ave
pilot, and experience elsewhere, indicates they are expensive, labour intensive
and protracted.
6.
In parallel with its duty to reduce crime and disorder, the Council has a statutory
duty to assert and protect the rights of the public for the use and enjoyment of, and
to prevent as far as possible the stopping up or obstruction of all its highways.
Failure to discharge this duty properly would result in the Council acting unlawfully.
The Council must therefore exercise caution before embarking upon any
proposals that may interfere with the rights of the public to use any highway.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW)
7.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced amendments to the
Highways Act 1980, that enabled permanent rights of way to be closed for crime
prevention reasons; but not to reduce anti social behaviour, except next to a
school. And it did not provide for cases where for example, alleys were not public
rights of way. The method of providing a legal basis for gating rear alleys has
therefore remained as Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO).
8.
The test under CROW was whether the closure would prevent or reduce crime. It
was necessary to show that the premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway
were affected by high levels of crime; and that the existence of the highway
facilitated persistent committing of criminal offences.
9.
Under Section 60 of the Act the Council also has a duty to prepare a Rights of
Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP). This should facilitate better provision for
walkers, cyclists, and people with mobility problems and must be taken into
consideration when considering closures.
Trimdon Avenue Pilot
10.
Initially it was necessary to classify the area as one suffering from high crime and
disorder levels. A lengthy legal process, involving considerable officer time
ensued, and it was not until August 2005 that the Special Extinguishment Order
could be made; 2 years after the initial consideration.
11.
The 2003 report stipulated that because this was an untried and untested process:
12.

The closure would be regarded as a pilot, therefore no further closures would
be considered until an evaluation was completed.

The commitment would be reconsidered if objections were received, as the
costs of pursuing the closure to an inquiry could be considerable.

Local residents would meet the costs of the project up to the point of the
Special Extinguishment Order.
It was estimated that the total cost for the Order would be in the region of £2500
unless an objection was received that resulted in a public inquiry.
2
13.
A survey was conducted in February 2006 to establish residents’ views on how
effective the footpath closure had been. 36 questionnaires were completed. They
showed that 72% believed that crime and disorder levels had improved, 6%
thought they were worse and 22% thought they had not changed.
14.
An analysis of crime rates 6 months before the closure and 6 months after the
closure show that although there had been a reduction in reported crime from 14
to 10, reported disorder actually increased from 18 to 19. In the 6 months Feb –
Aug 2006 there were 7 crimes and 4 incidents of disorder.
15.
It is estimated that the footpath closure more than £10,000, as it involved a
considerable amount of officers’ time (Appendix 1) in Environment and Legal
Services.
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (CNEA 2005)
16.
The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 introduced an alternative
method of closing alleys where it could be demonstrated they were the source of
crime and/or anti-social behaviour. New provisions under this Act (and the
Highways Act 1980 (Gating Orders) (England) Regulations 2006) that came into
force in April 2006 enable the Council to gate a highway in a similar manner to the
CROW Act 2000 but it:
a) does not first require the highway to be designated as an area suffering from
high levels of crime by the Secretary of State;
b) enables gating to take place if the highway suffers from crime and/or anti-social
behaviour: and
c) enables the Council to continue with a gating order even if objections are made
if it is considered in the best interests of the local community to do so – unless
these objections come from the police, fire, NHS or another authority through
whose area the high way passes – in such cases a public inquiry will be held.
d) provides for the closure to be temporary only, requiring annual review.
17.
If permanent closure and gating is sought (i.e. removing the highway status), the
provisions introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW
Act) should be used. However, given the longer timescales under the CROW Act,
the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) could be used to gate the highway whilst
seeking a CROW Act order to revoke the highway status permanently.
Current Situation
18.
At present there are 12 (Appendix 2) requests for footpath closure held in
abeyance in accordance with 10 above. There is a programme of alleygating
underway which is due to complete within the financial year 2006/07.
19.
There is evidence from other parts of the country that objections to the
extinguishment orders required in permanent closures (using CROW) are
increasing. This trend is financially significant as objections result in public
3
inquiries, which are tending to rule against closure. An inquiry in January 2005
found against Redcar and Cleveland Council.
20.
A policy is required to respond to the emerging demand for highway closures –
permanent and temporary, that reflects the Councils response to reducing crime,
disorder and anti-social behaviour as outlined in Section 17 of the Crime and
Disorder Act, the new provisions contained in the Countryside and Rights of Way
Act 2000 and amended Highways Act 1980.
COMMENT
21.
It is clear that with respect to closures for the purpose of gating, the council should
use CNEA provisions where appropriate. In terms of footpath closures, given the
evaluation of the Middlesbrough pilot, and experience elsewhere, it is important
that, notwithstanding our usual approach in terms of embracing new powers to
deal with crime and disorder, the council is satisfied that:






22.
There is sufficient evidence, over a significant period, that demonstrates there
are high levels of crime and disorder associated with the footpath in question
On balance, more people are likely to benefit from closure than from it
remaining open
All other practicable steps have been taken to mitigate the problems
associated with the footpath
There is a practical alternative route
Emergency access and access for utilities is safeguarded
Closures are seen as a last resort
The local community safety partnership (SMP), and the working groups arranged
under its auspices, is well placed to advise against these criteria. It is proposed
therefore that applications from agencies, residents, organisations etc. are
requested to address the criteria above and this is then considered by the SMP
which makes recommendations to the council accordingly. It is proposed that this
becomes an annual process in order that priorities for demands on funding are
dealt with systematically.
OPTION APPRAISAL/RISK ASSESSMENT
23.
Option one is to refuse to consider all requests for closure and instead propose
that other means of addressing crime and disorder are used. This option is not
viable as the Council has a duty under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 to do all it reasonably can to reduce crime and disorder, and having been
provided with the powers, it would be unreasonable not to at least consider their
use.
24.
Option 2 is to establish a staffing arrangement to gather evidence, conduct
consultation and negotiation, and an annual sum to cover legal and engineering
work. Based on one fte scale D (£19k) and experience to date, £60k per year
would be required to close up to 10 footpaths (which includes notices, legal fees,
gates, installation, remedial works etc).
4
25.
Option 3 is to agree the criteria and arrangements in paragraphs 21 and 22. Any
recommendations as to closure should be considered annually through the normal
executive process. Services would be required to meet their own costs in terms of
staffing, with an annual application to the capital programme being made for any
works required. The outcome of subsequent capital programme bids would
determine the number of footpaths that could be closed each financial year.
FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND WARD IMPLICATIONS
26.
The estimated costs of permanent closures are listed in Appendix 1.
27.
Only option 2 has a revenue implication as detailed above.
28.
The proposals affect every ward.
RECOMMENDATIONS
29.
It is recommended that the Executive:

Agree that the residents costs associated with the Keswick Grove footpath
closure pilot are written off.

That any future applications for closure be considered in line with option 3.

That the pending applications are dealt with before any new applications are
considered.
REASONS
30.
The recommendations are supported by the following reasons:

The original report proposed local residents would meet the costs of the project
up to the point of achieving the Special Extinguishment Order. On the basis of
the options contained within this report it would be unreasonable to expect the
residents of the pilot scheme to make a contribution as previously
recommended.

The Council has to do all it reasonably can to reduce crime and disorder.
 The Trimdon Avenue evaluation has demonstrated the very limited cost
effectiveness of the process.
AUTHOR: Joy Nolan
TEL NO:
728407
_______________________________________________________
Address:
Website: http://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk
5
APPENDIX 1
KEY STAGES AND ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TRIMDON
AVENUE CLOSURE
Stage
Actual Costs
Estimated
Total
(disbursements) Costs (staffing)
£600
Initial consultation to
ascertain feasibility
Land ownership clarification
Consents from applicants
Council Officer Time (POA)
Legal Officer costs
Planning Permission
£220
Pre Appeal
Designation Order
Sub total
£220
Special Extinguishment
Order
Public notices
£1535
Transport and Design
Services
£1,755
Potential Additional Costs for Future
Closures
Planning Appeal
Statutory undertakers costs to establish
accurate cost of diversions
Public Inquiry
Diversion of statutory undertakers
apparatus or wayleaves.
Physical removal of path (removal of
lamp columns etc
Physical works to close path
Land transfers/deed alternations
£170
Minimal
£5,766
£600
£450-£650
£ 1,000-1500
£8,586 £9,086
£1925 (Actual)
£10,511-11,211
£12,266£12,966
£2500-£3500 plus objectors costs
if unsuccessful
£600 per company
£5000
£10,000 - £15,000
Varies
Varies
Residents to arrange
6
APPENDIX 2
EXISTING REQUESTS FOR FOOTPATH CLOSURES FOR THE PURPOSES OF
CRIME PREVENTION AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Location of Path
Sandford Close
Vernon Court
Cotherstone Drive
Regent Road 37 and 39
Comment
Rec/d 24/2/2005
2 objections received
Initial request for closure received 10 years ago
Most recent request 27/11/2005
Initial request for closure goes back 15 years
Most recent request rec’d from residents 23/1/2006
27/4/2005
Langridge Crescent between 36
and 38
27/1/2006
Gatenby Drive
Sedgefield Road
Rec’d 12/7/2006
3 Objections received
Rec’d 20/5/06
Rookwood Road
09/06
Connaught Road
09/06
Eastdale Avenue
06/06
Grisdale Close
May 2006
Eastbourne Gardens
May 2006
7