Agenda item

To consider and provide a recommendation to Cabinet on the proposals set out in the attached report.

Terry Hughes, Community Safety Manager, introduced the report set out in the agenda, further to which comments were added:

·         The council’s Parks team supported the dog control measures at Dunorlan Park.

·         There was no case for a ban on dogs at The Nevill Grounds, scientific advice was that dog mess was no worse than fox mess.

Councillor Pound had registered to speak.

·         Strong support for action being taken immediately.

·         No need for further consultation, could implement and withdraw/amend if the situation changed in the future.

·         The committee should reject any delay to measure 4.

Debate included –

Measure 1 (reduce the number of roads in Southborough subject to alcohol controls):

·         No objections

Measure 2 (introduce dogs on leads in the formal areas of Dunorlan Park):

·         Mixed response to consultation

·         Enforcement would start to educate dog walkers

·         Most dog walkers acted responsibly so this would only affect irresponsible dog owners.

Measure 3 (renew dogs on leads in Nevill Ground):

·         No objections

Measure 4 (ASB controls at Sherwood Lake)

·         Need to manage expectations of local residents.

·         Further work to engage the community in the solution would be welcome.

·         The PSPO could be put in place immediately.

·         An unenforced order would be undermined.

·         The main problems were in the summer so there was time to get the solution right.

·         A time limit would focus attention, further investigations should be completed and reported to Cabinet in April.

·         A PSPO would be implemented separately to the establishment of a fishing club.

·         Need the support of the Police to be effective.

·         Concerns that a PSPO would not be enforced should not prevent its implementation.

·         Consultations needed to be actioned.

Measure 5 (ASB controls at St John’s Park):

·         Doing nothing was not an option.

·         Youths observed climbing on cars to jump the fences and causing damage.

·         Those acting anti-socially were unlikely to follow PSPO without enforcement.

·         Need to avoid moving problems into more hidden and unsafe areas.

·         The Police would be the primary enforcers during the peak problem times overnight. More work was needed with the Police to maximise effectiveness.

Measure 6 (ASB in multi-storey car parks):

·         There was not a significant difference in the issues highlighted in the consultation by men and women.

·         Further conversations with community groups would be undertaken to encourage them to not use car parks as meeting places.

·         Was important for the car parks to be perceived as safe.

·         A trial could be undertaken to make the ground floor of Crescent Road Car Park a safe zone with additional lighting, CCTV and signage.

·         The status of the safer parking mark was unknown but could be investigated. The purpose of the report was to tackle anti-social behaviour rather than safety.

·         Improvement works would be expensive so proposals should be properly costed before a decision.

·         The matter of safety in car parks should be considered in a wider context.

·         Anti-social behaviour tended to be a bigger problem in the summer when larger groups of young people were around.

RESOLVED – That the recommendations set out in the report be supported subject to Cabinet taking account of the issues raised during the debate.