Agenda item

Councillor Church asked a question of Councillor Flavell as the Portfolio Holder as to what action was being taken following the appalling vandalism of the Racecourse bowling green during the weekend of 22-23 April to deter a recurrence and when could the bowling club expect fences around the green similar to those already placed around the bowling greens in Abington Park.  Councillor Flavell advised that the Police were investigating the matter as it constituted criminal damage and that the patrol of the area through the park ranger service had been increased.  With regard to the fencing there was no funding allocated but a capital bid would be submitted for this improvement work which would be considered against other corporate priorities.  In addition Councillor Flavell advised that she had met with members of the Bowls League who were appreciative of the current position and were prepared to assist by making a contribution towards the cost of the works.

Councillor Pritchard then asked a question of Councillor Flavell as the Portfolio Holder whether in terms of grass cutting there had been any alterations to the number of cuts throughout the Borough.  She asked what monitoring was in progress to check on the standard of work and did we still cut highways grass on behalf of the County Council.  Councillor Flavell advised that there had been no alteration to the grass cutting regime but that following delivery of new moving equipment there had been extensive staff training and possibly this meant that it had taken them slightly longer than normal to carry out their mowing round whilst they became familiar with the new equipment.  Also it was the season for grass to grow very quickly.  Four area officers continually monitored staff progress with the mowing round.  The Landscapes Section still cut highway grass on behalf of the County Council.  She advised that the Borough received £93,500 from the County as their contribution for their standard of five cuts, although the Borough actually maintained to a higher standard with approximately fourteen cuts. 

Councillor Wire asked a question of Councillor Miah as the Portfolio Holder whether the policy still existed whereby if Council tenants or their families were involved in anti-social behaviour or criminal actions a joint letter was sent from the Council and Police placing the tenant’s continued occupation of the property at risk.  Councillor Miah advised that Tenancy Management wrote their own letters warning tenants of the consequences of their continued behaviour which were in line with the Police and current procedures.  Should a problem escalate then a Police disclosure would be obtained to enable the appropriate legal action to be considered.  There was close liaison with the Police on these mattes and joint visits were often carried out which proved to be successful.  Joint signing of acceptable behaviour contracts could take place between the two agencies.  These contracts point out that continued anti-social behaviour may lead to an ASBO or Possession Order.  Councillor Miah advised that the coordination liaison and working practices between Housing Services, the Anti-social Behaviour Unit and other Council departments and the Police were about to be reviewed in order to maximise the input from all to deal with anti-social behaviour in our tenancies and on estates.

Councillor Wire asked a question of Councillor Caswell as the Portfolio Holder whether parking restrictions had been relaxed on All Saints Square being a civic space.  The Church were allowed to park wedding and funeral cars only.  Designated parking bays existed for Church staff on street.  However now there were oil patches and other marks on the paving of the square and he asked whether Councillor Caswell agreed with him that this was unacceptable.  Councillor Caswell stated that the Borough had not relaxed parking restrictions in All Saints Square.  The existing arrangement had been agreed many years ago whereby the Square was a space dedicated by the Church to the Council as public highway.  However visitors to the Church and some members of the public on occasion had been using the area for parking contrary to the arrangements agreed with the Church.  An agreed area in front of the Church was used to park wedding and funeral cars but was controlled by the Church via locks on chains limiting access.  A reminder of the agreed arrangements had been sent to the Church and arrangements were in hand to clean the area of any oil stains.  Parking Management Services have checked whether they could enforce no parking on the square and it appears that this is possible.  Therefore with effect from today parking attendants would be issuing a parking fine to any vehicles found in the area other than that agreed for weddings and funerals.  However special events would be allowed in the area upon the basis of a request for a licence issued by the County Council as the Highways Authority.  Councillor Caswell stated that it should be noted that the County Council had expressed some doubt as to the validity of the designated parking bays on George Row which would be investigated further by the County Council. 

Councillor Wire asked a question of the Portfolio Holder to which Councillor Hadland responded in Councillor Palethorpe’s absence.  Councillor Wire asked when the furniture and other contents were moved from the cyber café at Briar Hill.  He asked what plans were now in place for the café and why as Ward Councillors were he and Councillor Marriott not involved in any decision making process.  Councillor Hadland explained that the Megabytes Café had been managed by the County Council Youth Service which had been set up initially to divert young people from anti-social behaviour and misuse of drugs.  The Centre became dependent on other organisations using it as the purposes for which it was originally intended were not realised.  The Youth Service decided to end the lease on the building in October 2005 although the Community Safety Partnership had provided funding to keep the Centre open prior to that date.  Councillor Hadland briefly outlined the actions taken to try to keep the Centre open and referred to meetings, some of which Councillor Wire had attended.  However ultimately, there was no option but to close the building and as the building was empty the Borough Council’s IT Department considered that the computers could be vulnerable and so were removed.  Subsequently at a CASPAR network meeting in January 2006 Age Concern, who had become the main users of Megabytes, requested that the furniture be transferred from Megabytes to the Family Resource Centre at Briar Hill where they were providing a service so that the furniture could be used there.  The Borough Council agreed to this as the furniture had been paid for by CASPAR.  The agreement was made with the condition that the furniture remained on the estate.  Subsequently the furniture was removed to the Family Resource Centre at the end of March.  At present there were no firm plans for Megabyte’s building.  However, with Briar Hill identified as a neighbourhood renewal area, it provided potential for usage in relation to that agenda. 

Councillor Roy asked a question of Councillor Hadland enquiring how long it took for a shutter on the Londis supermarket to be repaired and she asked how many pigeons were using it as a residential option.  Councillor Hadland stated that he presumed the Londis store referred to was the one on Park Square, Kings Heath and that from information obtained as far as he was aware there was no actual problem or repair needed to the shutter itself.  Problems with pigeon droppings outside the shop had been reported due to pigeons roosting above the shutter and action had been taken to carry out work to prevent pigeons from roosting on the shutter.  There had been a delay as the ledge above the shutter needed to be spray cleaned prior to it being boxed but it was hoped that these works would be completed by Wednesday of this week. 

Councillor Roy then asked a question of Councillor Hadland whether he could advise as to the possibility of publishing questions submitted to Portfolio Holders in the Council agenda (assuming that they arrived before the publication deadline).  Councillor Hadland advised that due to the timescale this was not really feasible and could result in only a proportion of the questions being published.