Home » Medway Council »

Twydall residents failed by Medway Council

By Alan W Collins on Sunday 29th March 2009 22:25 / 9 comments

A group of Twydall residents are angry that Medway Council has failed to listen to their concerns on anti-social behaviour for eight years.

The residents of Eastcourt Lane and Brenchley Road have been campaigning since 2001 to get their private road gated to prevent anti-social behaviour, as their road is used as a short cut between Eastcourt Lane and Brenchley Green.

	Residents’ incidents
	‘I have had people lobbing dog mess over my garden fence from the alley.’
	‘The other day someone just dropped their trousers. I asked them what they were doing and they just said I am having a wee.’
	‘I went round and picked up all the cans and bottles the other day. I filled up four bin bags just from my section.’
	‘They have even set light to the bottom of our fences.’
	‘A few youngsters were drunk a few weeks ago and just started pulling down a fence. There was a stolen van destroyed and left down the back on Christmas eve.’
	‘I left my work van out the back once and came back to find one side covered in graffiti.’
	Incidents courtesy of the News, March 26, 2009

According to this week’s News, and my own source, the residents have regularly been the victims of anti-social behaviour such as dog mess, public urination and vandalism from drunken ‘yobs’.

One resident, Paul Tring, 57 years-old and a 16-year resident of Eastcourt Lane, told the News: ‘It has made our lives hell. I have had the door handles ripped off my garage, people going to toilet up against my walls, kids throwing stones at the dog in the garden. We can’t leave our cars out there because no one can see that they are doing.

‘I can’t see why it would be a problem to gate the alley.’

In fact none of the residents seems to see a problem with it. However, after co-operating with a crime survey which, Medway Council confirmed at the time, identified a need to gate the alley, the council backtracked and secretly ordered a second survey. Unaware of the second survey, and frustrated with the inaction from Kent police, the residents had stopped informing police of all incidents and the council decided against gating.

Laura Patrick, for Medway Council, said: ‘There are statutory criteria applied to the installation of gating schemes, and this is underpinned by Medway Council’s own alley gating policy.

‘In this instance the criteria was not met.’ The second time round.

One of the things bemusing residents most is how often the advice from police, after residents report incidents, is to consider gating the alley.

Roger Salter, 67, has lived in the same house for 44 years. He said: ‘We have compromised and said that we would open it and close it in the morning and at night but that got rejected as well. There have been people running through here with things they have stolen from the shops in Twydall Green.’

Residents have, in the past, collected a 400-strong petition to gate the alley, but were unsuccessful. They even raised the funds for gates. However, after initial support from their local councillors and the local MP, they have been left stranded, left to fight their seemingly futile fight alone.

Paul Hoare, 69, a 40-year Eastcourt Road resident, said: ‘I have no problems with 99 per cent of the people who use the walkway but unless something is done, problems will continue.’

The Collins Comment

This is a post that has been several months in the making. I have been in conversation with one of the residents suffering with the above anti-social behavioural issues since September/October last year. However, no number of words could portray the anger, frustration and disappointment they feel with the way Medway Council have handled their problem.

No matter how many times they are re-published, no matter how many ways they are re-written, no matter how loud they are repeated, only Medway Council have the ability to help them positively. Unfortunately, Medway Council lack the will.

The final word on the matter should go to a former Highways Manager who, in conversation with the residents, said he fully sympathised with their plight and would do exactly the same in their position.

However, the decision not to gate the alleys was ‘a political one (in all senses of the word)’.

No Related Posts

9 Comments

Rebecca Denny says:

Tuesday 31st March 2009 at 10:39

These alleys are un-lit and poorly surfaced. I realise they offer a short cut from Twydall shops to Eastcourt Lane but personally I would rather use the lit pavements of Twydall Lane and Brenchley Rd, this may add an extra 2 or 3 minutes to my journey but is a much safer option. The alleys are a haven for criminal activity, they are relatively secluded and have many exits for a quick getaway. The residents should not have to put up with the anti-social and threatening behaviour they are regularly subjected to or the costly vandalism, the police barely have the time to deal with such incidents so surely gating the alleys is the ideal solution for all concerned? I fail to understand why the coucil have not approved a gating order, it can not be for financial reasons as the residents had previously raised funds themnselves, it can only be political! Surely we all have a right to feel safe in our own homes? Why are these Twydall residents not entitled to that? Will the coucil wait for someone to be seriously/fatally injured in these alleys before they act? It seems they have a reactionary approach rather than a pro-active one nowadays!
John Ward says:

Friday 3rd April 2009 at 02:15

Although obviously I have no direct knowledge of the background details of this particular case, I can state that there is no “party political” issue regarding alley-gating within Medway Council itself, as far as I have ever experienced.

Indeed, the majority of such gates I have encountered have been in Labour-represented wards (as Twydall is) such as Rochester East and Chatham Central. The gates have gone in over a number of years, so I have allowed for the ward boundary changes in 2003 and ascertained that those locations were in the old Town and Troy Town wards.

There were changes in legislation and financial support a few years ago, when Angela Prodger was the Community Safety Portfolio Holder, and the council made alternative provisions.

Since then there have been new gates installed, though at a slower rate (then again, most of those originally needed had already been done by then, or were in the pipeline).

I am bound to ask: what do the Twydall Councillors have to report on their activities on this issue, along with documentary evidence to back up their claims? What is the specific reason for the latest problem?
Alan W Collins says:

Friday 3rd April 2009 at 11:30

John – I don’t believe that the former Highways Manager was necessarily referring to a “party political” issue, merely that the decision not to gate them was “political”, if you catch my drift.

The Twydall Councillors have given up on the residents. Indeed Cllr Griffiths told them to find someone else to represent them and that they should try contacting ‘[their] Tory friends’.
Paul Tring says:

Friday 3rd April 2009 at 17:49

As one of the residents involved in this situation it may help if I give a brief(well as brief as I can) history of events.
In 2001 Medway Council’s Community Safety urged residents to apply for Alleygates as the preferred method of dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour in the alleys. I was not involved in the application but along with the vast majority of residents I supported the application. (I had recently had my garage broken into and the damage was so severe it had to be demolished).The gates were approved (i.e we met all the criteria)and installation commenced.Halfway through the installation Medway Council backtracked and stopped the work being completed. We later learned that our councillors had objected because they believed the private alleys should become a public right of way (in fact some claimed it already was).Residents had collected a petition containing over 400 names in support of closure but this was ignored.
The alleys are private and we are legally entitled to gate them however Medway Council warned us that if we did so they would apply to the courts for an injunction to have them removed.We found this heavy handed approach rather puzzling because a former resident (co-incidentally a former Labour Councillor)had already set a precedent by closing a similar troublesome alley next to his property(in Eastcourt Lane) because of antisocial behaviour yet Medway Council did not (and still do not) see that as a problem.
Medway Council had previously carried out searches to establish the legal status of the alleys as part of the Alley Gating application (and had confirmed in writing) that all the alleys were private. However they now say that they made a mistake, they were now claiming that a short footpath linking the private alleys to Lamberhust Green is a public highway and cannot be gated.
In 2003 Medway Council suggested that residents write to them requesting a “stopping up Order” on this footpath section (the only legal way of closing a public highway at the time).What they failed to mention is that the court had no power to “Stop Up” a public highway for reasons of crime and antisocial behaviour,of course our councillors also opposed the order so it was rejected.
However in 2006 the Government introduced “Gating Orders” under the Clean Neighbourhoods Act, this legislation enabled councils to close a public highway if it was deemed to be contributing to crime and antisocial behaviour. These orders are temporary and can be used to close the alley at certain times of the day.
Residents had suggested this solution in 2001 but it was rejected,however just prior to the “stopping Up Order”application in 2003 Cllr. Griffiths contacted me to suggest it might be possible to proceed with night time gating without going to court. He urged residents to drop the court case and said he had tacit agreement from the Conservative administration to fund the gates.
We were willing to consider any compromise but this felt like a panic measure so we made our own enquiries and found there was not a chance in hell that this proposed measure would be funded. There was also the fact that the gates could be removed if someone had subsequently claimed a public right of way(i.e it is illegal to gate a public right of way, even if the Council do it)
Anyway (after much delay) Council Officers met with residents to discuss a night time gating order under the Clean Neighbourhoods Act, they asked residents to participate in a 3 month crime survey to establish the extent of the problem.
Residents would obviously have preferred a permanent gating solution but we were prepared to compromise and felt the nigh time solution would address all the stated concerns of our councillors, we even agreed to dedicate the private alleys as public rights of way in order to make sure things progressed rapidly.
Three months later Council Officers confirmed that the crime survey did indeed support a gating order and they reassured residents that the gating order would proceed.Warning bells did sound though when they told us to keep the decision under our hats until they had sorted out the “political implications”.
Of course the gating order never progressed so residents sought another meeting with Council Officers, we met at the Compass Centre and were once again re-assured that the gating order would go ahead. It didn’t and it was quite some time before we learned that Council Officers had decided to disregard the crime survey in favour of another survey carried out at a later date without our knowledge or involvement.We obviously felt this was underhand because Council Officers (together with Kent Police)had previously impressed on residents how important it was that all incidents (no matter how minor) were reported, they conceded that many incidents go unreported simply because many never get a response from the authorities.
It now appears that it is council policy to base the final decision on a gating order on a crime survey in which local residents are excluded. So you can now have a situation where the Community and the Police are recommending a course of action and Medway Council can simply decide to ignore them and they have the nerve to call it a Community Safety Partnership.
I would also point out that eight years on no-one has submitted a claim for public right of way even though Council Officers have provided every assistance to possible claimants.
Given that residents have done everything to address the concerns of our councillors it would be interesting to know why they still feel unable to support these measures and also why Medway Council appears to act solely for the benefit of councillors. unfortunately I think we will wait a long time to get an explanation.

Serving You? Not this group of taxpayers they’re not but maybe this slogan is not intended for ordinary taxpayers.
R. Salter says:

Monday 6th April 2009 at 16:04

The residents surrounding the alleys concerned rarely use them, but have to live with the anti-social behaviour and crime. People from farther afield using the alleys to access the shops or schools are the ones opposing the closure, along with Medway Council and our three Labour Councillors. I wonder if they would have a different point of view if it was occurring in their backyard?
Maybe if they spent a week living here, seeing what we endure on a daily basis, they would see things in a different light.
John Ward says:

Monday 6th April 2009 at 21:44

Crumbs! This is a long, complex and sorry tale?

I am aware of the problems that legislation regarding "public rights of way" (PROW) can cause, as it scuppered a scheme I had put forward myself to deal with a specific issue in my ward a few years ago. We solved it another way in the end (I always have a "Plan B!")

Incidentally, I also encountered a couple of stalled alley-gate schemes in part of my new area when the ward boundaries changed ? but managed to solve them (Cornwallis Ave/Horsted Ave, and Elm Ave, all in Chatham). Where there’s a will and a (dare I say it?) good and determined Councillor?

I don’t know what the solution is in this case, but hopefully Alan will continue to pursue and publicise this, so that a solution might be found.

I do hope so.

By the way: I can state without fear of contradiction from anyone with experience of being a Councillor: the Council definitely does not exits for their benefit. If anything, the opposite often seems to be the case!
G.Salter says:

Tuesday 7th April 2009 at 19:45

Oh to have a Councillor such as you. We have compromised and come up with various plans but everything gets scuppered because we do not have good and determined Councillors willing to work with us. Ours will not even communicate.
John Ward says:

Wednesday 8th April 2009 at 16:14

Well, I can’t stand over there; but do watch out for who does end up standing against the three incumbents in May 2011. I do hope you get at least one good ‘un standing there.

Twydall appears to be one of those places assumed to be a "shoe-in" for Labour; and I think it’s high time that ? just as with (say) urban Strood ? enough of the residents aimed higher in future.

I think Wayfield is another up-and-coming area, despite the social housing in places (which is a large cause of many problems in such areas, as has been well documented).
Paul Tring says:

Thursday 9th April 2009 at 14:16

John,
I think our councillors have been very determined….to do everything they can to scupper any agreed compromise to address this issue, as to why,we have no idea why and they unlikely to tell us.They probably don’t want to be seen to openly oppose measures to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour in their wards given their pretence about being concerned with these issues.
They had originally said their objections centred on the possibility of a claim for a PROW on the alleys and said they had concerns with children getting to school and pensioners accessing the local shops via the shortcut through the alleys(n.b council officers had declared the surface of the alleys were unsuitable for pedestrian traffic). We have addressed these concerns in full.
As I explained earlier residents had taken these concerns on board and agreed to dedicate the route through the alleys as public rights of way, we even agreed to let the council resurface the route to make it easier for path users.We agreed to this compromise in exchange for night time gating under the Clean Neighbourhoods Act.I don’t know if you are aware but gating orders are a temporary measure, these orders are reviewed on a periodic basis and can be removed if the situation improves, they do not remove any highway status that may or may not exist.
AS I said residents were urged to participate in crime survey to provide evidence of crime and antisocial behaviour and council officers have admitted that this survey did support a gating order. A second survey was ordered by Medway Council without our knowledge or participation( not sue why they would think this necessary given the first survey had already provided the proof and we have crime reference numbers to back up a long list of reported incidents in recent years).
Of course we sought explanations from the Council and the latest suggests the second survey may have been requested due to an error of communication,however they now say that all future gating orders will be subject to a further survey so we can only assume that Medway Residents will be excluded from participating in these further surveys (as happened in our case). We also learn that council officers will not be entering into further correspondence with residents on this issue.So now we find ourselves in the position of not having local councillors to represent our concerns and a council unwilling to discuss the issues, we are therefore only left with the option of publicising our situation through the media.When over 400 people sign a petition demanding action you would think someone would take notice and at least make a determined attempt to find a solution.
Serving who?