Agenda item

Councillor Roy asked a question of Councillor Hadland as the Portfolio Holder how much revenue had been lost through the empty properties on Park Square between 2005 and 2006 and the mean length of time taken to let the shops on Park Square between 2003 to date.  Councillor Hadland stated that the amount of rental income that was lost for the three empty units on Park Square for 2005/06 was £8,800 and the empty business rate for these three units was £2,020.75.  Re-letting the empty units at Park Square had been difficult as there was a problem finding a use that did not compete with existing businesses and there had been additional delays in letting numbers 2 and 3 because two earlier applicants had withdrawn at the last minute after being offered new leases on the shops.  With regard to number 2, a new lease was due to be completed for a boutique use and number 3 for an Afro-Caribbean grocery use.  Number 14 was under offer for an Internet café.  In response to a supplementary question Councillor Hadland confirmed that he would take the point of there needing to be a proactive approach regarding the re-letting and that he would keep her updated on this.

Councillor Roy then asked a question of Councillor Larratt as the Portfolio Holder.  She asked what the administration’s position was regarding picking up revenue on costs for the development of play/sports areas in neighbourhood renewal areas such as the Spencer Estate when there were opportunities for external capital and time limited revenue investment.  Councillor Larratt stated that Council were aware that there would be implications on revenue of capital developments and these would be assessed on a case by case basis as they were developed.  Future revenue implications would be built into the planning and risk assessment in every development of this nature.  These programmes would be increasingly undertaken in collaboration and partnership with other stakeholders and with the added development of neighbourhood management, each area management team would be looking at these issues within their local areas. 

Councillor Roy then asked a question of Councillor Palethorpe as the Portfolio Holder.  She asked when the residents of Park Walk would have community safety gating improvements implemented and the length of time these improvements had been being discussed.  Councillor Palethorpe stated that security gates at the South Oval entrance to Park Square were installed by the CASPAR project.  At this time they also considered the suitability of installing additional gates at the Park Walk entrance to the maisonettes.  However following concerns from the Fire Services, the gates were put on hold.  There had also been other problems with youths.  He stated that a feasibility study was to be carried out with regards to the safety aspect of installing additional gates but before this could be done floor plans of the area were required and officers were in the process of obtaining those floor plans.  Once these had been provided then a more detailed plan with costs etc could be drawn up and a proposal to the budget holders could be made to see if funding was available.  In response to a supplementary question, Councillor Palethorpe agreed that the local community would be kept updated on the situation.

Councillor Marriott then asked a question of Councillor Palethorpe as the Portfolio Holder.  He asked how the effectiveness of the CCTV system that had been installed to cover the Briar Hill area was measured.  Given the continuing high levels of anti-social behaviour that were reported in this area he asked Councillor Palethorpe how many people had been caught  carrying out such acts and/or deterred from doing so by the presence of the cameras.  He also asked whether the system was giving the people who lived in the Briar Hill area value for money.  Councillor Palethorpe advised that there were two CCTV cameras in Briar Hill, one at the front of the shops and one to the rear of the shops and that most issues of anti-social behaviour observed from these cameras were off-road motorbike nuisance.  This was reported on a regular basis to the Police.  In addition, other criminal activity had been reported and arrests had been made.  Figures as to the number of incidents and arrests were collected on a Town-wide basis and not a camera basis.  The cameras on Briar Hill and Limehurst Square, Duston were by far the busiest on the Borough’s housing estates at present.  The average cost of a camera was £3,000 per year for monitoring and maintenance.  Briar Hill was part of one of the six areas that had been identified for neighbourhood management.  It was aimed to have this rolled out across the Town this year.  This meant that they would see an increase in multi-agency activity in this area and eventually a Police Saver Communities Team.  It was noted that the area already had a CBO and Neighbourhood Warden.  Generally Briar Hill did see a slight reduction in overall crime for 2005/06 compared to 2004/06, however there was an increase in criminal damage which was how the Police measured anti-social behaviour but this was a pattern seen Town-wide.  Councillor Marriott asked a supplementary question and in doing so commented that three cameras had been installed in Briar Hill as part of the CASPAR project.  Crime and anti-social behaviour in that area had been the highest area for crime outside the Town Centre.  He sought assurance that he would be kept closely involved and informed in terms of this project.  Councillor Palethorpe advised that he would do so and hoped that the Ward Councillors would be able to take a place on the multi-agency team.