Highway Closures for the Prevention of Crime and Anti Social Behaviour

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

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

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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)

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).

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.

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

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.

The 2003 report stipulated that because this was an untried and untested process:

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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 inquiries, which are tending to rule against closure. An inquiry in January 2005 found against Redcar and Cleveland Council.

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

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:

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

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.

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).

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

The estimated costs of permanent closures are listed in Appendix 1.

Only option 2 has a revenue implication as detailed above.

The proposals affect every ward.

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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:

APPENDIX 1

KEY STAGES AND ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TRIMDON AVENUE CLOSURE

Stage / Actual Costs(disbursements) / Estimated Costs (staffing) / Total
Initial consultation to ascertain feasibility / £600
Land ownership clarification / £170
Consents from applicants / Minimal
Council Officer Time (POA) / £5,766
Legal Officer costs / £600
Planning Permission / £220
Pre Appeal / £450-£650
Designation Order / £ 1,000-1500
Sub total / £220 / £8,586 £9,086
Special Extinguishment Order
Public notices / £1535
Transport and Design Services / £1925 (Actual)
£1,755 / £10,511-11,211 / £12,266-£12,966
Potential Additional Costs for Future Closures
Planning Appeal / £2500-£3500 plus objectors costs if unsuccessful
Statutory undertakers costs to establish accurate cost of diversions / £600 per company
Public Inquiry / £5000
Diversion of statutory undertakers apparatus or wayleaves. / £10,000 - £15,000
Physical removal of path (removal of lamp columns etc / Varies
Physical works to close path / Varies
Land transfers/deed alternations / Residents to arrange

APPENDIX 2

EXISTING REQUESTS FOR FOOTPATH CLOSURES FOR THE PURPOSES OF CRIME PREVENTION AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Location of Path / Comment
Sandford Close / Rec/d 24/2/2005
2 objections received
Vernon Court / Initial request for closure received 10 years ago
Most recent request 27/11/2005
Cotherstone Drive / Initial request for closure goes back 15 years

Most recent request rec’d from residents 23/1/2006

Regent Road 37 and 39 / 27/4/2005
Langridge Crescent between 36 and 38 / 27/1/2006
Gatenby Drive / Rec’d 12/7/2006
3 Objections received
Sedgefield Road / 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