Agenda item

Councillors Mary O’Connor, Neil Fyfe and Beulah East attended the meeting and spoke as Ward Councillors.

Concerns and suggestions from petitioners included the following:

• Mansfield Drive was a quiet residential road.
• Understood that the residents in question needed to live somewhere but felt Mansfield Drive was not an appropriate place given it was located next to a school.
• Music was played loud during the night and early morning.
• There had been various incidents one of which resulted in a resident of the aforementioned property being stabbed.
• The lead petitioner was a registered child minder and issues associated with No. 25 Mansfield Drive were putting a strain on her business.
• There had been no overnight supervision for residents of No. 25 Mansfield Drive.
• Police had been called on numerous occasions.
• One of the residents frequently comes and goes on his moped noisily.
• Cigarettes were often thrown in petitioners’ garden.
• Residents requested that the hostel was closed.

All 3 Ward Councillors spoke in support of the petitioners’ request and raised the following issues:

• There needed to be more control on private sector landlords.
• The Care Associates needed to work with the local community.
• Concern that these young people had inadequate supervision.
• Do not want residents to live in fear.
• There was a duty of care for these young people.
• The house in question was close to Hayes Park School.
• There was concern about other homes in the local area operating in the same way.

Local MP John McDonnell also spoke in support of petitioners and raised the following issues:

• Concern this property was located next to a registered child minder.
• The residents of No. 25 Mansfield Drive were disturbing local residents.
• Reports of a stabbing were worrying.
• Was in favour of re-offenders being supported so they don’t re-offend.
• Residents living at No. 25 Mansfield Drive were also vulnerable and The Care Associates actions were undermining the rehabilitation process.

Sergeant Duncan Phillips also spoke in support of petitioners and raised the following issues:

• The Care Associates did not inform the police when setting up the home in February 2013.
• Would like the police to be notified of residents’ names and dates of birth by The Care Associates.
• Reports of loud music disturbance were reported to the anti-social behaviour team.
• Had attended various callouts for incidents including a stabbing and threats of a resident using a baseball bat.
• Often called out for breaches of curfew, some of the residents were on tag.
• CCTV was installed at the rear of the premises. 
• CID requested CCTV tapes which took The Care Associates 3 days to provide.

The Cabinet Member, Cllr Douglas Mills listened to the concerns and responded to the points raised.

Cllr Mills explained to petitioners that the Council had no power to close the premises; however, the Council would collect evidence to support residents’ concerns.

Cllr Mills informed petitioners that the Council officers had previously contacted The Care Home Associates to express their concerns but no action had been taken.  Cllr Mills agreed that Mansfield Drive was a quiet residential road and that something needed to be done that was beneficial to all parties.  Cllr Mills stated that this could be achieved by calling in the Manager of The Care Associates and its Directors to discuss how unpopular the home was with residents.

Cllr Mills encouraged residents to report incidents to the Council by keeping a log and sending to the Anti-Social Behaviour Investigation Team Manager.  Officers informed petitioners of the Council’s out of hours Noise Service and what was considered as a statutory nuisance.

Cllr Mills stated that it would be ideal if The Care Associates informed the police and social services of who was living in the house to ensure a good working relationship between partners.  Cllr Mills concluded that whilst an instant solution can not be given the Council would be working with residents to resolve the issues associated with No. 25 Mansfield Drive.

Resolved - That the Cabinet Member:

a)     Noted the views and concerns of the petitioners.

b)     Discussed with petitioners whether the measures taken to date had been effective in addressing the reported anti social behaviour of the residents and by other individuals associated with the property.

c)     Advised petitioners that the Council does not currently have legal grounds to close the premises, although this would be kept under review if the problems persist.

d)     Instructed the Community Safety Team to contact the Directors of Care Associates so that they fully understand the concerns of residents and are asked what additional measures they will undertake to improve the situation.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Addressing the current reported behavioural issues of the residents at 25 Mansfield Drive by engaging with The Care Associates and greater supervision of occupants at the address should improve the quality of life of the residents of Mansfield Drive.

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

A Closure Notice followed by a Closure Order (on application to a Magistrate’s Court) under Part 1A of the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, could be sought in respect of a premises that causes significant and persistent disorder or persistent serious nuisance to a community. However, Home Office Guidance states that these powers should only be used as a last resort, where other interventions have been used or considered and rejected for good reason, and where implications, for example, for children or vulnerable adults in the premises, have been carefully considered.