Draft minutes of London Road LAT meeting 8th May 2018

Draft Agenda 8th May 2018

  1. Welcome and introductions

Present: Cllr Emma Daniel, Annie Rimmington, Representatives from Roundhill society (Sandy Thomas, Rob Stephenson), Allan Brigginshaw, Penny Morley, Richard Barraball, Mark and Daphne de Boisssiere, Sandy Crowhurst, Bob and Sylvia Chilton, Maureen Winder (Level/Triangle ), Philip Wells (Chair), Corinne Lamb (note-taker), Lucy Dunleavy (late arrival), Andy Keeffe (UOB)

(17)

Apologies: ESFRS – Janice and Tom are both on holiday, Mike and Tony, Lucy (Vice Chair)late arrival, Cllr Pete West (virus), Cllr Louisa Greenbaum. Tim Read (Holiday). Beccy University of sussex. Cath Prenton. Elspeth Broady:

Elspeth: Hi Philip

I can’t make this as I’m off to West Country/Wales tonight but I had a chat with Richard Barrabal about graffiti as we worked on The Greenway. We’ve been particularly concerned about chronic tagging on the Greenway – we simply can’t cope with trying to paint it out and people in the immediate area don’t get involved. However, both of us welcome the more organised graffiti (street art) e.g on the Boston St wall – so much better than random tags, and unless other solutions are found (e.g green wall with people to put up money to make it happen and effort to keep it going) it’s preferable. The ‘zero tolerance’ idea sounds good – it’s easy to say, but is impossible to implement with current resources, and in any case what on earth does it mean?. Bring back the PCSO’s who were a discrete but regular presence on the streets, put resources into youth activities and infrastructure and galvanise local people to take responsibility for painting out tags on their walls, and this will only happen where houses are not let to transient tenants.

You’ll note we replanted the planter at the Duke of York’s – even that got tagged and we can’t get the tag out of the wood.

  1. Minutes and date of next meeting – 12th June

Approval of minutes held over to next meeting

  1. Graffiti – Emma Daniel
    1. Context: The following letter was sent:

To Brighton City Council via Cllr Emma Daniel,

Major concern regarding exponential growth of graffiti across our City

Chairpersons representing a wide variety of community groups across the city wish to voice their concern

regarding the massive increase of graffiti and tagging across the city, particularly over the last twelve

months. We are requesting leadership and urgent action from our elected representatives to address this

issue.

Tagging’ alongside unwelcome ‘commissioned’ graffiti on public, private and even architecturally

significant properties, has reached alarming levels. It is rarely painted out by the council or by property

owners and, based on feedback from residents, our police service no longer respond to reports of active

tagging. It seems clear to us that if there is an existing BHCC strategy regarding reducing and removing

graffiti, it is failing. The result is that our historic and attractive city is becoming an eyesore as more and

more areas become ugly, feel unwelcoming and even threatening.

It is unclear from the council’s constitution and committee structure where the responsibility for this area lies

and what role the police should play. We therefore request that the Chairs of the three committees where

leadership on this issue would possibly best reside, meet to agree who will take the initial lead. Namely;

Cllr Gill Mitchell: Environment

Cllr Emma Daniel: Neighbourhoods

Cllr Alan Robins: Tourism

We do recognise the severe financial constraints that the council is working within, however this cannot

release the council from its leadership role in coordinating action and finding a resolution to this ever

growing problem, which is fouling our city. Graffiti deters visitors, distresses residents and creates unsettling

no go’ areas where antisocial behaviour grows. It costs local businesses income and reduces the quality of

life of Brighton & Hove residents.

We feel sure that a creative strategy can be developed.

This ought to be

· via leadership from the Council

· developed with communities

· on a city-wide basis

· enlisting cross-party support

· encouraging local people to play an active part

· setting out clearly the boundaries of what is acceptable for our city

· persuading property owners of their responsibility

· with strong city-wide publicity

· and a clear line on enforcement

We feel that this sort of approach can halt the graffiti scourge.

We look forward to hearing your response

Signed: Community group:

Philip Wells Chair, London Road Area Local Action Team

Maureen Winder Chair, Triangle Community Group

Annie Rimington Chair, Round Hill Society

Sandy Crowhurst Chair, Environment, North Laine Community Assn

24/4/18

Following an email from the four communities, Emma agreed to come to this meeting to discuss the issue further, as she obviously had a interest in this issue.

Comment: It has become a scourge and threatening and some areas no go zones, we need to get the city back for the residents and the businesses.

Annie- explosion of graffiti and in some areas has become threatening important for city to sort it out. It affects businesses and visitors

Maureen from the Level Communities Forum added there needed to be research behind this the tagging especially, would like this to be looked at, certain groups not sure where this has come from and work out to take things forward, and where it is coming from.

Sandy (NCLA) – vandalism the whole city is covered, there is a difference, it’s becoming like a cult/ revenge thing by these people.

Emma Daniels in response to the letter sent from the LAT (see appended text i.e. at foot of these minutes):

  • Councillor Daniel’s stated that it is primarily an issue of tagging. If it is done without the property owners permission, its crime.

  • The Phoenix estate has been having the same issues.

  • Nationally the people doing the tagging are:

    • Males,

    • 15-24,

    • Groups, not bound in by area.

    • They work on reputation and frequency, and use dangerous or difficult locations that are very visible. The more dangerous it is the more credibility is given to them.

  • People who are doing it locally, it’s not a great manypeople, but catching them and bringing them in is a matter of police power, as it’s caused criminal damage, photos are helpful but are less valuable than one might think in helping get a conviction because they can dispute it.

  • Staff may recognise them but not strong enough to use legally.

  • CCTV can be deterrent.

  • There is legislation in place to issue fines, but need to catch them in the act.

  • Where it is done on private property the responsibility for cleaning it up is the property owner.

  • The council currently spend £63,300 a year on graffiti services, but only deal with the offensive graffiti.

  • In the last 5 months they have done approx. 170 site visits, this is carried out by 1 person and the staff’s perspective is that they can’t cope with the volume given their resources.

  • The council will develop a more formal approach, with a mix of a graffiti strategy but primarily focus on the offensive slogans and tagging and anything without homeowners’ permission.

  • They will look at getting extra resources into the graffiti team.

  • As an administration they have focused most of their resources on things the public does not see; e.g. social care, which was a political stance, however we can’t let this issue continue.

  • For the strategy to work they want to liaise better with police, particularly around the Level and the London road area.

  • We need more PCSO’s, which Kate Bourne did announce we are getting more PCSO’s.

  • There will be a directory of tags as they gather intelligence to try and prosecute or divert offenders.

  • A key point to tackling this is bringing the communities on board to clean tags off themselves. If the communities, don’t have resources, then the council fills in for them, or volunteers, businesses.

    • At the LAT chairs meeting Councillor Daniel’s put up an idea for communities to bid for Restorative Justice funding for projects, as residents have asked if we can work with the young offenders to tidy up the area.

    • Under the heading of “Restorative Justice” a project has been initiated and funded.

    • Cllr Daniel was very clear that this is a project involving the Level as a focal point, she suggested doing days of action on the Lewes road, St Peters and the North Laine. All to do it on the same day.

    • The money available is £15,000 for materials: paints for residents and businesses, which mean someone can supervise volunteers and the young offenders and co-ordination.

    • They are also going to combine City Clean and the community effort from the start.

      • Realistically be around September – October time.

      • Community involvement will only work is there is a concerted effort by everyone over a number of weeks, some kind of plan on each street.

        • We do already have a form of this from residents Mark and Daphne who tackle London Road station, which is a mini success.

        • Some successes have been that there has been a special meeting regarding tagging in the Roundhill area and a double page piece in the Brighton Independent. Travis Perkins gave them a 25% discount for a pot of paint, that they have made a start, but they have still have shops closing due to the drugs etc.

  • Is a link between tagging and drug dealing, and the fact that it is becoming less hidden?

    • Answer: probably not.

  • Daniel’s admits that part of the issue is the staffing levels.

  • The council have put together a strategy called VVE (Violent, Vulnerability and Exploitation) and put money towards protecting the young and vulnerable from impact of organised crime.

  • Combined with the neighbourhoods work on tagging and timing-wise she hopes have the best impact.

  • Local residents have seen older people carrying out tagging. They come from wider areas not just in the city.

  • A part of issue is that places where there incidents are reported (e.g. in paper or on TV) is attractive to the taggers, but more city-centre based.

Could students get involved with the clear up?

  • There are a lot of charities supporting people around the Level.

  • This is a good idea, the University of Sussex have provided a lot of student volunteers, for the clean up days.

  • University of Brighton are keen to get involved.

Question regarding 3GS

  • The council spent no money on 3GS; the service is funded from fines exacted on people who get caught. There is no overall cost to BHCC.

  • 3GS exist to get rid of the problem of cigarette buts, its easy to find these incidents and they only get money for fining people.

  • There is a difficulty as if they placed someone for 24 hours to watch a particular wall which, was tagged frequently then it would not get tagged, the problem would move on to another place.

  • They are better on fly tipping and have used CCTV.

  • 3GS do have democratic scrutiny and are preventing litter.

  • There needs to be a combined effort from the 3 services; 3GS, Police and City Clean.

Managing agents who look after properties- do you have a good link with them to get a concerted effort?

  • Tracy Hill has done some good work these related issues and HMO’s; she would be a good person to talk to about how to get agents on board.

Increasing the graffiti team

Below is the three items the council think would be best for the tagging to decrease:

  • There is the emergency clean up of offensive tags is staying.

  • They would like to have some work on enforcement and try to keep a catalogue of tags, to track down and prosecute and offenders

  • The coordination of volunteers in the community making sure paint is delivered and effective communication.

When is the strategy going to be put together?

  • As it stands the strategy could commence September/ October 2018 time, given resources and funding. There is not a current officer doing this, they need to have it programmed into their schedule and make sure they have the capacity to do it.

  • The report from officers that Matt Easteal mentioned to the LAT Chairs forum is the initial report on resources, and the strategy is what came out of it.

  • It is important to look at what other councils are doing but understanding that they may not have the same issues we do.

Councillor Daniels was thanked for her time and work on this.

  1. Policing and Licensing
    1. Update on Police attendance at LATs – there is a new Chief Inspector

Below is the response from Lisa Bell, which came back via Caroline Lucas:

Dear Caroline,

Cc Chief Inspector Swinney

Firstly, can I apologise for the lateness of my reply but I have been enjoying some leave and you may not have received my auto-reply.  I do understand that the London Road area can present some significant challenges for residents and businesses so I would be keen to support the LAT in any way we can, considering the resources we have available.  I would like to use this as an opportunity to introduce our new head of Prevention Policing for Brighton & Hove, Chief Inspector Rachel Swinney, as I think this is a great way to brief her and begin to develop a productive relationship.  

Today has been Rachel’s first day in post but I know that she is keen to get to grips with her role and ensure that we maintain good relationships with our LATS. Can I therefore suggest that Rachel is afforded the opportunity to be introduced to key LAT members to discuss current issues and agree a way forward on this.

If this is agreeable to you then I am sure that Rachel will undertake the necessary ‘ground work’ to be able to respond to local concerns and the request for regular attendance appropriately. As you know, we take the role of LATS very seriously and recognise the importance of regular contact to ensure we understand the issues of most concern. However, we must ensure that any agreement with a specific LAT for routine attendance is necessary in the circumstances and is likely to add value.

I trust that this proposal will be fed back to the LAT members in due course and I am sure that they will be keen to meet with Rachel as soon as diaries allow.

Best regards

Lisa

  • LAT Chairs forum invited Rachel Swinney to their meeting, but no positive reply as yet.

  • Action Point: Philip is going to write and find out and try and invite her to a LAT meeting.

    1. Planning application – “Leyland Paints/ Tile Shop” – consultation update.

      • Philip Well’s asked for more details regarding this, the response is below:

I am sorry only one of your team were able to attend our exhibitions that took place on 22 and 24 March. It is of note that we are planning a second public exhibition for Wednesday 16 May, from 3pm until 7pm at Jurys Inn, 101 Stroudley Road, Brighton BN1 4DJ. We will be sending out formal invitations shortly, and will make sure to let you know of this. We hope you will be able to attend.

Action Point: All to keep track of this.

4b. HMO – planning application for 32 Clyde Road, details as follows.

From Pete West:

ST. PETER’S AND NORTH LAINE BH2018/01179 Maisonette 32 Clyde Road Brighton BN1 4NP

Change of use of existing first & second floor maisonette from a

3 bedroom single dwelling (C3) to a 3 bedroom HMO (C4).

Action Point: Philip has flagged this up with Cath for any suggestions

  1. Parking in zone J – a petition was suggested – we haven’t got very far yet.
    • Below is a response from Paul Nicholls (Parking Strategy and Contracts Manager)

We don’t hold occupancy data by street (which usually also varies depending on the time of day as well as street by street within a zone). But we do monitor the number of permits issued in any zone compared to the number of spaces within that zone (allowing for 90% of permit holders to be parked at any one time).

The figures for area J show that there are a maximum of 4,529 permits that could be issued before the area would be at capacity and that 4,049 are currently on issue in the area. Although this does mean that there will be spaces elsewhere in the area, it’s clear that the demand in Beaconsfield Road far exceeds the supply. I do hope that additional enforcement in the area will help free up some spaces.

As for the proposal to split the zone due to internal commuting, I’ve discussed with Charles and if residents wish to split the zone this would require a significant consultation as it may mean residents in certain roads (to be designated) would find themselves not being able to park in a road nearby with their resident permit.

This requires a petition from residents to the ETS Committee to gauge the strength of opinion for this change from Area J residents (and where)

This consultation could then be considered when the parking scheme priority timetable is next reviewed, however, we already have a recently agreed timetable up to 2020/21

 

Kind regards,

Paul Nicholls

Parking Strategy and Contracts Manager

    • There is a democratic issue that when we voted it was only to be a CPZ (Control Parking Zone) and never asked about being added to an existing zone.

    • The original issue was that residents could not park outside their own house and the idea of the CPZ was that it would give residents a chance to park out their homes.

    • Action Point: Proceed with petition

As it stands for petition

"We the undersigned are concerned about the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ)
zone J south of the railway line (i.e. between Viaduct Road and Ditchling
Rise).

The original advantage of the CPZ was that the residents could park during
the day, and overnight within reasonable walking distance of their homes.
When the CPZ was introduced there was a huge benefit.

But since the extension of zone J north of the railway line we have found
that if we go out in the car, particularly in the evening, we again find
ourselves unable to park within the area when we return. We believe that
movement within the now very large zone J is a significant factor in this.

Please can the Council take steps either to divide zone up into smaller
areas along the railway line, or use some other method to bring back the
benefit that we voted for."

Comments on the petition and its wording

  • After 8pm anyone can park where they like, its not just to do with the parking perit.

  • Anecdotal evidence has shown that people come down to the Duke of York’s before 8pm.

  • This also happens when people leave their cars to go on holiday.

  • In HMO’s every member of the household is allow to have a permit.

  • Andy Keeffe: Students who have cars have to have their cars registered with their property, there is not a real need for students to have cars and is discouraged by the universities as they do not need cars, with the exception of possibly nursing or teaching students.

  • Action Point: Find out the best way to get the signatures from residents. Philip to email volunteers when this has been found.

  1. Updates (if any)
    1. Fire service bollards – to be held to next meeting

    2. Oxford Street Alley – funding – via Inspector Paul Ransome

  • Paul Ransome is happy to sign off an application.

Action point: Philip to send an application to Paul Ransome

  • Below is about getting funding to gate it off the alleyway on Oxford Street:


    1. Viaduct Road/ Beaconsfield Road communal bins – dates have been sent this follows:

Dear Mr Wells,

The current timescales for rollout are:

·         w/c 7 May: mail out to residents with details of the implementation of communal bins; this will explain where the bins will go, what can go in them, collection arrangements etc. 

·         w/c 21 May: bin infrastructure to be delivered and installed

·         w/c 21 May: dual collections

·         From 28 May only communal bins will be emptied.

Please do get in touch if you have any further questions.

 Kind regards

Lynsay

  • Residents have not received this letter.

  • Action point: Ask Lynsay, is there a scheme to get rid of the existing bin, they would need to be picked up.

    1. Loss of bins near London Road station – the reply received is below from Damien M

Hi Luisa

I’m afraid we have not removed any bins, but it was reported to me last week that they are missing. I have ordered new bins – and they should be delivered to the depot tomorrow, so we would place them back early next week.

Best wishes

    1. Pavement parking on Baker Street – have reply received but no further details as yet.

    2. Francis Street (if any)- nothing

    3. Clyde road phone box

  • Lucy wrote to Simon details as follows:

Hi Simon,

Could you let me know if there is any likelihood for the phone box on the corner of Clyde road (outside the Patels’ cornershop) to be removed? I emailed you about it in January, after our LAT meeting.

 Apparently the drug dealing inside the broken box has really stepped up in the last few weeks and the Patel family are really distressed about it. They worry not only about themselves, but about all the children who come to their shop and have to step past this box each time.

Thanks and best wishes,

Lucy Dunleavy

(vice-chair of London rd LAT)

  • Action point: Simon Banister will look into this ASAP.

8. Sainsbury’s community guardians

  • This is a pilot project funded by Sainsbury’s these people are on call on the Lewes Road and the London road and will be lasting until this summer.

. Please remind me of the correct title – wardens? guardians? – Brighton BID Guards and the Sainsbury’s Community Guards as they are slightly different.

2. If there is a problem or complaint (or praise!) about the community guardians, who do we contact? – Brighton BCRP/BID for their Guards and Mitie for the Community Guards re praise and complaints.  If you need a specific contact I am sure I can provide one but Mitie will have their own complaint process.  However Brighton BCRP coordinate all activity and are a good place to make contact re any good work if the name is not known.  

3. Who supplies or certifies the training? – The SIA provide the standards and Mitie undertake to train their personnel in accordance with all industry standards, health and safety etc.  In addition they have had additional training with police and BCRP to cover local partnership working, vulnerable people, Op Griffin anti –terrorist awareness and statements.  

4. Is there an outline of training standards in print or on the web? – SIA are on the web with information on how they operate the national standards.  Mitie will have their own operating principles but we have worked in partnership with them to agree the type of skills sets that are important.  We (the police) are working with the SIA and Industry to establish if there should be an agreed set of standards for community guarding (work in progress)  

5. Am I correct in saying that this is a 12 month pilot project which began in August 2017?  – Yes as this was an operational trial to test how this can work.  Sainsbury’s are providing continued support for the CG and a second pilot area which might be in Manchester is being discussed.

6. Please remind me of the geographic areas being covered, both widely and specifically in London Road. – See attached map but they do not just patrol only those roads as some flexibility is built in.  BID guards only cover the BID are, CG’s around the BID area but the can support one another if there is a serious incident.  Please treat this as a guide.

  • Chris Neilson is the person to get in touch with this.

  • They are paid above normal security and high standards.

  1. Any other business (please notify before the start of the meeting)

  • Royal Pavilions Gardens Survey email as follows

  • This will be on the LAT website for interest in taking part.

Help us conserve and protect the Royal Pavilion Garden

We are inviting the public, neighbours and all those involved with the Royal Pavilion Garden to give us their views on how we should improve, conserve and protect the historic garden.

The Royal Pavilion Garden is one of the few remaining Regency gardens in the country and is considered one of the nation’s most significant outside spaces.

It is also the open space that links together the buildings making up the Royal Pavilion Estate, from the Royal Pavilion and Brighton Museum to the Dome and Corn Exchange.

The council is committed that the garden will remain free and accessible to all as one of the most important green spaces in the city. We want to find out how people think we could improve the garden and increase understanding of its significance. In particular how to: 

·         Better communicate the historic and ecological importance of the garden

·         Improve the management of the space

·         Develop the layout

·         Enhance community enjoyment

With limited resources, we want to ensure money and time are invested where they are most needed, to conserve the historic garden and the heritage buildings within it for residents and visitors.

We will use the public’s views to inform funding bids to invest in the garden, including a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund as part of Phase Two of the Royal Pavilion Estate project. They will also feed in to the final draft of the garden’s conservation and management plan.

Here is a direct link to the survey.. We hope you will take part and can help spread the word. You can also access the questionnaire online through the following web page: www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/royalpaviliongarden or call 03000 290902 for paper copies.

Messages will also be sent through social media, posters and postcards.

We look forward to as many people as possible taking part. Your views will help us plan for the future, maintain the garden’s heritage features and improve this unique city centre open space for all its visitors.

The survey is open until 29 June.

Background

The Royal Pavilion Garden is Grade II listed and was restored between the 1980s and 1992. The restoration aimed to return to John Nash’s original designs used for the garden and the planting reflects what was available in the 1820s. Apart from two Nash-style beds in St James’s Park in London, no other Nash landscape has been restored from his plans.

Over five million residents and visitors to the city use the garden each year. This volume of visitors creates significant challenges in maintaining the garden both for leisure users, and as a fitting setting for the iconic Royal Pavilion.

Last year Historic England added the Royal Pavilion Garden to the ‘At Risk’ register and recommended that the council develop a conservation and management plan. This is currently being developed by Chris Blandford Associates.

More about the Royal Pavilion Garden on the Royal Pavilion & Museums’ website

Date of Next Meeting: 12th June 2018

Meeting closed around 19:45

Advertisements