environment scrutiny panel date: thursday 6 april 2017...

ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL

Date: Thursday 6 April 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Venue: Spencer Room, Town Hall,

Middlesbrough

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel held on 9 March 2017.

Copy of Minutes []

4. Bereavement Services Update

Report of the Director of Environment and Commercial Services

Recommendation: The Panel is asked to note the content of the report.

Report [Page 5]Appendix 1 [Page 9]

5. Draft Final Report - No Ball Games Signs Policy

The Panel is asked to consider the content of the Draft Final Report and to agree conclusions and recommendations prior to its submission to the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

Report [Page 15]Appendix 1 [Page 21]Appendix 2 [Page 25]Appendix 3 [Page 27]Appendix 4 [Page 29]

6. Any other urgent items which in the opinion of the Chair, may be considered.

Bryn RobertsMonitoring Officer

Town HallMiddlesbrough29 March 2017

MEMBERSHIP

Councillors D Rooney (Chair), T Higgins (Vice-Chair), S Biswas, D P Coupe, S Dean, J Goodchild, M Saunders and Z Uddin

Assistance in accessing information

Should you have any queries on accessing the Agenda and associated information please contact Joanne Dixon, (01642) 729713, [email protected]

AGENDA ITEM 3Environment Scrutiny Panel 9 March 2017


A meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel was held on 9 March 2017.

PRESENT: Councillor D Rooney (Chair), Councillor Higgins (Vice Chair); Councillors Biswas,Coupe, Dean and Goodchild.

OFFICERS: J Dixon and J Pearce.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: G French, Area Manager: Middlesbrough & South, Thirteen Group.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of Councillors Saunders and Uddin.

** DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

There were no Declarations of Interest made by Members at this point in the meeting.

** MINUTES

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel held on 9 February 2017were submitted and approved as a correct record.

NO BALL GAMES SIGNS – FURTHER INFORMATION

At its previous meeting on 9 February 2017, the Panel received an overview in relation to its newscrutiny topic of ‘No Ball Games Sign Policy’, presented by the Head of Environment Services.

The Panel was provided with information in relation to the Council’s current policy and proceduresin relation to No Ball Games signs and was advised that the signs are not legally enforceable.

In considering how it wished to proceed with the topic, the Panel decided that it wished to invite arepresentative from the Council’s Community Safety Team to obtain their views in relation to thesigns. The Panel also wished to invite an appropriate representative from Thirteen Housing Groupto find out whether it had a policy in relation to No Ball Games signs and how it dealt with relatedissues.

J Pearce, Community Safety Officer, Middlesbrough Council, was in attendance at the meeting toprovide further information in relation to No Ball Games signs from the perspective of theCommunity Safety Team.

The Community Safety Officer presented her report to the Panel and emphasised that playing ballgames was not considered anti-social behaviour in itself, however, if a person caused (or was likelyto cause) harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as theperson playing with the ball, then consideration would be given to dealing with the nuisance undercurrent legislation – Anti-Social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014).

In terms of the number of ball nuisance complaints received, Members were informed that it wasdifficult to establish the exact number received by Middlesbrough Council as there were often otherbehaviours that formed part of the complaint. Appendix 1 to the submitted report provided thenumber of ball nuisance complaints received from 2013 – 2016 and it was highlighted thatcomplaints tended to be seasonal – rising during the summer and school holiday periods.

The Panel was advised that all reports of ball game nuisance were dealt with on an individual basisand assessed by a Neighbourhood Safety Officer. If the behaviour was deemed not to be anti-social then a ‘Guidance on Football Nuisance’ leaflet was sent to all parties involved. A copy of theleaflet was attached at Appendix 2 and it was highlighted that the Neighbourhood Safety Team hadused the leaflets since 2014 and Officers had reported a reduction in the number of ball nuisancecomplaints. Referrals to Unite Mediation had been used over the past three years bringing partiestogether to resolve the issues, however, this service would no longer be freely available inMiddlesbrough after 31 March 2017. Community Agreements had also been used in the past

1Page 1 of 32

Environment Scrutiny Panel 9 March 2017

whereby parties signed up to a range of acceptable behaviour practices. This process was veryresource-intensive for Officers and not always sustainable when people moved on.

It was highlighted that where the Neighbourhood Safety Officer deemed a nuisance complaint to beanti-social behaviour, appropriate advice and support would be offered to the complainant, includingkeeping a diary of incidents and liaison with Police where criminal matters had taken place, andenforcement action against any person identified as a perpetrator of the nuisance.

The Community Safety Officer advised that there were currently five Neighbourhood Safety Officersacross Middlesbrough. One of the Officers was currently absent due to sickness, but of the fourOfficers she had spoken to regarding ball game nuisance, all agreed that the number of initialcomplaints had not changed significantly, however, once the advice leaflets on ball game nuisancehad been sent to complainants, they had noticed a significant reduction in repeat complaints whichresulted in much less of their time being taken up with such issues. In conclusion, theNeighbourhood Safety Officers considered that the leaflets worked well. Opinion was dividedbetween the Officers in relation to whether No Ball Games signs were beneficial. Officersacknowledged that the signs could raise expectations of residents as they expected action to betaken but the signs were not enforceable. However, two of the four Officers stated they felt theyreceived fewer complaints regarding ball game nuisance where the signs were in place.

During the course of discussion, the following issues were raised:-

In relation to the Guidance on Ball Game Nuisance leaflet, it was clarified that the leaflets weresent to complainants and perpetrators (if known) when a complaint had been made. The Panelsuggested that the leaflet should be made available on the Council’s website and should alsobe circulated to all Community Councils.

It was clarified that where it was clear that an initial complaint included anti-social behaviour aswell as ball game nuisance, the anti-social behaviour would be dealt with separately and athorough investigation would be undertaken. Priority was given to repeat and vulnerablecomplainants.

AGREED as follows:-

1. That the information provided within the submitted report, and verbally at the meeting, be notedand considered in the context of the Panel’s investigation.

2. That the Council’s “Guidance on Football Nuisance” leaflet be circulated to all CommunityCouncils for information and be added to the Council’s website.


The Chair acknowledged that the Panel had decided to invite a representative from ThirteenHousing Group, as one of the biggest landowners in Middlesbrough, to find out whether itsapproach to the use of No Ball Games signs and dealing with ball game nuisance mirrored theCouncil’s approach.

G French, Area Manager Middlesbrough and South, Thirteen Group, was welcomed to the meetingand presented his report to the Panel, which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

It was highlighted that Thirteen Group managed more than 11,500 properties in Middlesbroughwhich were currently owned by four landlords within the group. Thirteen Group owned 1.5 millionsquare metres of land in Middlesbrough. Erimus Housing was the largest of the landlords in termsof stock and was also the main land-owner of property curtilage and communal areas and wasresponsible for the maintenance and management of those spaces.

In relation to issues arising from ball games nuisance, the Panel was advised that none of thelandlords within the Thirteen Group had a No Ball Games Policy or a tenant’s handbook at thecurrent time. The Group’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy was reviewed in June 2016 and stated thatthe Group expected tenants to take reasonable steps to resolve issues between themselves, such

2

Page 2 of 32


as neighbour disputes, parking issues, young children playing, etc. Thirteen Group supportedchildren of all ages to engage in play within the neighbourhood that they lived, within reason.

It was explained that if a tenant/resident reported a problem with ball games, it would beinvestigated to establish the level of nuisance involved. Factors such as damage, harassment oralarm being caused would constitute anti-social behaviour and would be dealt with accordingly byanti-social behaviour officers.

The Panel was informed that there were a number of old ‘No Ball Games’ signs in-situ, mainly putup by Tees Valley Housing. Thirteen intended to remove the signs as part of a wider brand signageprogramme and had not erected any new signs in Middlesbrough for more than two years.

Since April 2016, there had been 10 reports of anti-social behaviour where an element of thecomplaint included playing of ball games or damage being caused by a football. None of thesecases had required serious intervention.

Paragraph eight of the submitted report provided the wording included in Thirteen’s standardtenancy agreement in relation to nuisance, discrimination and other harassment which included areference to playing ball games close to someone’s home.

The Area Manager stated that, as a landlord, Thirteen could only manage its tenancies within theterms of housing legislation and tenancy agreements and did not tend to rely on advisory signs butwould hope to work with residents to resolve any disagreements. The majority of cases could beresolved through direct discussions with the concerned parties, however, where a perpetrator wasnot a Thirteen tenant, the local authority or local police would be involved if appropriate.

The Area Manager commented on the Council’s Guidance leaflet in relation to football nuisance andstated that he would like to discuss further with the Community Safety Officer with a view toThirteen potentially producing something similar.


In response to a query, the Community Safety Officer stated that the signs raised expectationsof residents but were not legally enforceable and that many residents expected enforcementaction to be taken where signs existed, however, this was not possible.

The Area Manager agreed that the signs were purely advisory and added that although Thirteenplanned to take down signs as part of its sign branding exercise, this would not be done withoutconsultation with relevant parties in each locality.

The Community Safety Officer felt that a blanket approach of taking down all existing signswould not be appropriate and that each locality should be considered on its own merits andwork would be required within the community to assess what should happen as sometimes thesigns acted as a deterrent. This process would involve discussions with residents living in closeproximity to the area and the local Neighbourhood Safety Officer.

The Panel considered it important to convey the message that children should not be preventedfrom playing safely within their community but to ensure that they were considerate andrespectful of other people’s property and did not cause nuisance or distress to others.Residents should be made aware that No Ball Games signs were not legally enforceable butaction would be taken against perpetrators of anti-social behaviour.

The Chair thanked the Community Safety Officer and the Area Manager, Thirteen Group, forattending and for the useful information provided.

The Panel held a discussion around the information it had received to date and considered it did notrequired any further information and should proceed with formulating its Draft Final Report. ThePanel discussed possible conclusions and recommendations for inclusion within its Draft FinalReport which would be submitted to the Panel’s next meeting.

3

Page 3 of 32


AGREED as follows:-

1. That the information provided within the submitted report, and verbally at the meeting, benoted and considered in the context of the Panel’s investigation.

2. That the Panel’s Final Report on its review of the Council’s No Ball Games Signs Policy, bedrafted and considered by Panel at its next meeting on 6 April 2017.

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD UPDATE

The Chair provided a verbal update to the Panel in relation to the business conducted at theOverview and Scrutiny Board meeting held on 28 February 2017, namely:-

Attendance of Executive Member – The Mayor. Budget and Balanced Scorecards: Quarter Three 2016/2017. Final Report of the Environment Scrutiny Panel – Commercialisation. Executive Forward Work Programme. Scrutiny Panel Progress Reports (verbal updates).

The Chair highlighted that the Panel’s Final Report on its investigation into Commercialisation hadbeen very well-received and was approved by the Board. The report was scheduled to beconsidered by The Executive on 18 April 2017.

AGREED that the information provided be noted.

DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel was scheduled for Thursday, 6 April 2017 at1.30pm.

4

Page 4 of 32

MIDDLESBROUGH COUNCIL


6 April 2017

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT.

I. To provide a general update in relation to the action plan from 7 June 2016.

II. To also provide specific updates on :-

The appointment of horticultural apprentices.

Signage at cemetery.

Progress on the redesign of St Bedes and St.Hildas chapels.

Discussions with APSE regarding Council funeral services.

The Councils website and links.

Progress towards the ICCM Silver Standard

Satisfaction survey results

III. To provide an introduction in relation to the future land availability for burials.

IV. To provide information on future burial and cremation charging and arrangements.

1

BEREAVEMENT SERVICES - UPDATE

AGENDA ITEM 4

Page 5 of 32

I A General update on the 2016 Action Plan is provided in Appendix 1

II Specific Updates

1. Horticultural Service have appointed 4 apprentices to work in the cemeteries. Two in Acklam, one in Linthorpe, and one in east Middlesbrough.

2. As part of the improvement plan, the Council’s Architects have produced a design plan for signage around the Acklam Cemteery and Crematorium. This issubject to a future capital bid.

Of3. With specific reference to Acklam Cemetery, and Crematorium, a refurbishment

of St. Bedes has been carried out in the past 9 months. This has included carpets, upholstery lighting, sound systems, Catafalque upgrades, painting and decorating.

4. A further scheme is at the concept stage and is currently being designed by theArchitects for St.Hildas Chapel again subject to a future capital bid. Alongside this investment across the site is being considered and will include:

:

i. Installation of drainage improvements in Acklam Cemeteryii. Painting of lampposts etc. and replacement signage in Acklam Cemetery /

Teesside Crematoriumiii. Further improvements to planting on the approach to the Crematoriumiv. Preparatory work for development of additional cemetery burial areas

5. APSE were commissioned to provide information to the Council on options for Municipal Funeral Services. Whilst a number of options are potentially available, the impact of the intention of Stockton Council to establish a

2Page 6 of 32

Crematorium is still yet unknown. Therefore careful and timely consideration forfuture options is required before any new arrangements for Municipal Funeral Services are made. The service will continue to investigate the risks and benefits of procuring one or more partners by tender or quote to deliver Municipal Funerals and will also give due consideration to options identified by “APSE” regarding the creation of a Middlesbrough Council Funeral Service business.

6. As Scrutiny will be aware, the Council is upgrading its website. Bereavement services have a refreshed basic page on the Councils website which has a link to funeral choices for members of the public. Further work is to be carried out developing the bereavement services webpage in line with the councils Digital by default strategy.

7. The service intends to review its web pages to better reflect the range of services available.

8. Officers continue to model and develop ICCM service standards within Bereavement Services. It is our intention to seek Silver” accreditation with ICCM during 2017.

9. The Target was set at 90% for customer satisfaction this year. From the most recent Funeral Director survey, the result showed 86% satisfaction. Customer Satisfaction surveys will continue this year.

III Future land availability for burials.

10.The Council currently has 6 Cemeteries plus the responsibility for the maintenance of 1 closed Church yard (St Cuthberts, Marton )

11. At present we have up to 12 years remaining capacity across Acklam, Thorntree RC and Thorntree Main cemetery.

North Ormesby, St Jospehs and Linthorpe have a small number of incidental plots available and St Cuthbert Church of England is a closed Churchyard

12. In consultation with the Head of Planning the service proposes to develop a 20

year plus strategy for future land, cemetery and burial arrangements in Middlesbrough.

13.As part of this strategy, serious consideration will be given to the cost of cemetery development and to the councils long term commitment to ongoing cemetery maintenance, which includes road, footpath and infrastructure maintenance, grounds maintenance and memorial safety arrangement

IV Information on future burial and cremation charging and arrangements.

14. In 2017/18, several measures are being considered to achieve income targets and extend the availability of burial space, these include re-assessment of the terms of burial and memorial leases to better reflect the cost of cemetery maintenance over the period of the lease.

3Page 7 of 32

15. In 2017/18 there will be an increase in charge for a cremation. If an average price to a family charged by a Funeral Director is in the region of £4k, then this increase in charge of the cremation element would represent a minimal percentage.

16.Following our efforts to maintain timely services there are still concerns that a small number of services do not finish in the agreed time. Funeral Directors canbook longer service times and we are working closely and collaboratively with them to improve arrangements.

17.To realise more efficiency from the cremators, the service intends to review the operations at Teesside Crematorium.

18.The government proposes legislation requiring that Local Authorities engage Medical Examiners and introduce a new system of Death Registration by April 2018. This is being led by Legal Services and the Coroners Office.

RECOMMENDATIONS

19. For Scrutiny Panel to note the report in general and following specifically:-

a. The Service will pursue the opportunity for further capital investment in the infrastructure, maintenance and upgrading of the Crematorium and cemeteries.

b. The service will undertake a comprehensive review of cemetery provision as part of an overall 20 year plus strategy.

4Page 8 of 32


BEREAVEMENT SERVICES – ACTION PLAN UPDATE

SCRUTINY RECOMMENDATION 7th June 2016

UPDATE 28th March 2017

1. Following consultation and discussionwith senior managers that a percentage of the crematorium's income (to be agreed) isring-fenced to reinvest in the service allowing senior staff to ensure that facilities are kept up to date and in line with emerging regulations.

The council does not ring-fence revenue budgets for service growth.

Bids for improvement will be submitted via the Council’s capital Programme

Bids for ongoing revenue pressures will be submitted for inclusion in the Medium Term Financial Plan

2. In the short term that any urgent updating is looked as part of ‘the invest to save programme’ in order that the bereavement services and in particular the Crematorium remains competitive particularly in light of the competition from Kirkleatham and Stockton.

Investments in 2016/17 included:i. Refurbishment of St Bede’s Chapelii. Creation of shrub beds around crematoriumiii. Construction of roads and paths in Thorntree Main Cemetery.iv. Restoration of some paths in Acklam Cemeteryv. Repainting Acklam boundary fence on Acklam Road

vi. Measures to remove floods from some pathways around the crematorium

A Pilot drainage scheme was, installed in Acklam Cemetery in 2016. The effectiveness of the scheme needs to be reviewed.

Work is continuing to improve the efficiency of the heating system in the Crematorium. Several proposals are being investigated further by architects

An independent website has not been progressed as the council has been updating it’s own one.

Appendix 1

Page 9 of 32

4. That Bereavement Services examine the feasibility of installing new heat recovery measures at Teesside Crematorium. These measures would make use of the waste heat produced by the cremators which is presently discharged into the atmosphere.

An investigation was completed by Blu Rock Partnership on behalf of Asset Management which concluded that there would be no benefit in recovering additional energy, however additional monitoring of gas consumption by the heating system was recommended. This is currently being investigated by AssetManagement.

5. That the Head of Property Services undertakes a piece of work with a nominated Member of the Panel to improve the way in which currently unnamed and shared baby graves are memorialised.

10,000 snowdrops were planted by volunteers in October, which received press publicity. Baby memorial plaques are available and an order was placed with Groundworks in February to improve the shared baby graves.

6. That a digitised plan of all seven cemeteries incorporating site map and section plan, with the ability to highlight specific grave numbers, be commissioned. Burial records also need to be digitised to preserve these original, fragile and historically important documents for future generations.

A pilot scheme is being developed for Thorntree Cemetery in 2017/18.

This should produce digital cemetery and grave plans, digitized burial records and photographs of memorials / graves. Members of the public will be able to purchase these records via www.deceasedonline.com .

7. The panel would like an update to be provided once the officers have attended forthcoming seminars on Funeral Poverty and by June 2016

The Service has worked with Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management and the Association of Public Sector Excellence to develop its proposals to address Funeral Poverty. Officers are continuing to research the potential benefits and the risks of these approaches.

8. That a copy of the Bereavement Services Strategy / Business Plan is provided to the panel at the earliest opportunity.

This was submitted to the Scrutiny Panel in July 2016

Page 10 of 32

http://www.deceasedonline.com/

9.That consideration is given to the production of relevant information on the Middlesbrough Council Website and other forms of local media including leaflets to advise Middlesbrough residents on ‘What to do’ following a death and for copies to be made available at key locations across the town.

The service discovered that such leaflets are produced by the Department of Health and these are now available at the Registry Office and from the Bereavement Services Office. An extract was published on the councils websitewith appropriate guidance for readers. (See attached screenprint)

10. That the history of Middlesbrough, which is contained in Linthorpe Cemetery, be publicised and promoted with local school children to highlight the achievements of the town and the people who have helped to make Middlesbrough the town it is today.

The service held several meetings with heads of department in 3 schools closest to Linthorpe Cemetery. As the resources that are available for schools touse are held by the voluntary groups (Friends of Linthorpe Cemetery and the Middlesbrough Historical Society), the service will monitor uptake of these and will consider further promotion of the resources on an ongoing basis.

11. That a future edition of the Love Middlesbrough magazine carries an article on the history of Linthorpe Cemetery. We note that this is promoted through the Middlesbrough Culture programme which is held each September.

This was done.

Page 11 of 32

12. That the staffing levels of qualified staff for burials remain at 4.5FTE Members of staff.

There are now 4 trained members of staff who can carry out grave digging and others can assist when necessary.

13. That an apprentice is employed through the councils apprenticeship programme on a four year apprenticeship to the current Gardener based at Linthorpe Cemetery.

Area Care employed four apprentices on 27th February.The Qualification is a Level 2, Certificate in Local Environmental Service Skills QCF (7729-02), which should take 12 month to complete.They will be carrying out all aspects of work ascertaining to the environment such as cleansing duties, horticultural duties, and they have been painting bollards and railings.One apprentice will work in Linthorpe Cemetery and the others in Acklam and East Middlesbrough Cemeteries.

Page 12 of 32

AGENDA ITEM 5MIDDLESBROUGH COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL2017

DRAFT FINAL REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL

NO BALL GAMES SIGNS POLICY

Please note the changes to the previous final scrutiny report format. Findings are not covered in detail in the content of the report. Minutes of scrutiny panel

meetings are attached as appendices to provide an evidence base for conclusions and recommendations.

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1. To present the draft final report of the Environment Scrutiny Panel following its investigationinto the Council’s current ‘No Ball Games’ Signs Policy.

AIMS OF THE INVESTIGATION

2. On 7 July 2016, the Panel determined its Work Programme for the 2016/17 Municipal Year,selecting topics for investigation following consideration of the summary of the Environment,Property and Commercial Services Outcome Delivery Plan for 2015 – 2018, which underpinsthe Council’s Strategic Plan 2016 – 2020, and hearing from the Director of Environment,Property and Commercial Services, the Head of Environment Services and the PropertyServices Manager who provided an overview of key issues facing the service in the yearahead.

3. The Panel identified the topic of No Ball Games signs for inclusion in its Work Programme, tobe undertaken as a ‘short review’, as the Council’s Policy on No Ball Games Signs has notbeen revisited for many years.

4. The Panel wished to ascertain the Council’s current position in relation to its policy on No BallGames signs and to ensure that there is an appropriate mechanism for dealing withcomplaints in relation to all aspects of anti-social behaviour, including ball games nuisance,which meets the needs of the local community.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

5. The terms of reference for the Scrutiny Panel’s investigation were as follows:-

a) To examine the Council’s current policy on No Ball Games signs.

b) To determine whether the Council’s current policy and procedures remains effective.

1

Draft Final Report – No Ball Games V2/JD

Page 15 of 32

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

6. The Panel held meetings on 9 February and 9 March 2017 and was provided with informationby the following:-

G Field – Assistant Director: Environment, Commercial and Property Services (EPCS) K Garland – Head of Environment, EPCS J Parry – Environment Services Manager, EPCS W Langley – Service Performance Officer, EPCS J Pearce – Community Safety Officer, Community Safety G French – Middlesbrough & South Area Manager, Thirteen Housing Group

7. Setting the Scene

7.1 The Council’s policy in relation to No Ball Games Signs was last reviewed in 1997when the Council’s Highways and Transportation Committee recommended thatrequests for such signs are dealt with as a community issue and that it is emphasisedthat Councils do not have powers to enforce the signs.

7.2 Given the current lengthy procedure for dealing with No Ball Games signs requests,the Panel considered it appropriate to review the current policy and procedures.

8. Environment Services

8.1. At its meeting on 9 February 2017, the Panel received information in relation to theCouncil’s current policy and procedures regarding No Ball Games signs.

8.2. The Council’s current policy has not been reviewed since 1997 and the current processfor dealing with requests is lengthy. Requests for signs are required to be made inwriting to Environment Services and sites are initially inspected by a HighwaysInspector to ascertain whether the application for a sign is appropriate and shouldproceed. Signs are only permitted on public highways and if the Highways Inspectordetermines that an application can proceed further steps are taken to deal with therequest at the applicant’s local Community Council, where consideration is given to therequest by the local community. The Community Council Secretary informs the localWard Councillors and applicant of the date of the Community Council meeting when theapplication is to be considered. Residents living in the vicinity where the proposed signis to be sited are also informed of the meeting and may attend to support or object tothe application. Should the applicant fail to attend the meeting, the request will not beconsidered.

8.3. The Community Council Secretary informs Environment Services of the outcome and,where a request is approved, the appropriate next steps are followed for the sign to besited.

8.4. The Panel heard that No Ball Games signs are not legally enforceable and that someneighbouring Local Authorities no longer erect the signs as they feel the signs set falseexpectations for residents.

2


Page 16 of 32

8.5. The exact number of No Ball Games signs in Middlesbrough is not known asorganisations/individuals other than the Council have also put up signs. At the time ofwriting this report, no signs had been erected by the Council since September 2015when three out of nine sign requests were approved. From September 2015 to date,there are 31 requests outstanding.

8.6. When a complaint is received by Environment Services in relation to ball gamesnuisance, a referral is made to the Community Safety Team who contact thecomplainant to assess whether an anti-social behaviour element exists. Where it isfound that there is no anti-social behaviour element to the complaint, this tends toresolve the issue without a request for a No Ball Games sign being processed.

8.7. Information was provided to the Panel in relation to advice provided on TamworthBorough Council’s website about dealing with ball games nuisance at a local level,which the Panel found useful.

9. Community Safety

9.1. At its meeting on 9 March 2017, the Panel was presented with further information inrelation to ball games signs from the perspective of the Council’s Community SafetyTeam.

9.2. The Panel was advised that playing ball games is not considered to be anti-socialbehaviour in itself, however, if a person causes, or was likely to cause, harassment,alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the personplaying with the ball, then consideration can be given to dealing with the nuisanceunder current legislation (Anti-Social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014).

9.3. Each report of ball game nuisance is dealt with on an individual basis and assessed bya Neighbourhood Safety Officer. The Community Safety Team has produced a leafletentitled ‘Guidance on Football Nuisance’ (attached at Appendix 1) which is sent to allparties involved where the behaviour is deemed not to be anti-social behaviour. Theleaflet provides advice for players of ball games, parents, residents, spectators andpassers-by. It emphasises that young people have the right to play safely in their ownneighbourhood, near to home, but that it is important to respect other residents’ right toa peaceful environment and that everyone should be treated with respect. It alsooutlines applicable laws regarding damage to property, what action can be taken andhelpful contact numbers.

9.4. The leaflets have been in use since 2014 and have resulted in a significant reduction inrepeat complaints, although the initial number of complaints has remained fairly staticbetween 2013 – 2016, with 31 complaints received in 2016. Complaints tend to beseasonal and increase during the summer and school holidays.

9.5. The Panel heard that where a nuisance complaint is deemed to be anti-socialbehaviour, Neighbourhood Safety Officers provide appropriate advice and support tothe complainant and will take enforcement action against any person identified as aperpetrator of nuisance and will liaise with Police in relation to criminal matters. Inaddition, priority is given to repeat and vulnerable complainants.

3


Page 17 of 32

9.6. Opinion in relation to the benefit of No Ball Games signs is divided between theNeighbourhood Safety Officers. Whilst all Officers acknowledge the signs can raiseexpectations of residents in terms of enforcement, half of the Officers feel that the signscan act as a deterrent in some locations and that they receive fewer ball gamescomplaints as a result.

10 Thirteen Group

10.1 The Middlesbrough and South Area Manager, Thirteen Group, also attended thePanel’s meeting on 9 March 2017 to provide information on how Thirteen Group dealswith issues arising from ball games disputes and the use of ‘No Ball Games’ signs.

10.2 The Panel was informed that Thirteen Group manage more than 11,500 properties inMiddlesbrough, currently owned by four landlords within the group. Thirteen Groupowns 1.5 million square metres of land in Middlesbrough, with Erimus Housing beingthe largest of the landlords in terms of stock and also the main land owner of propertycurtilage and communal areas, for which it has responsibility for the maintenance andmanagement of these spaces.

10.3 None of the landlords within the Thirteen Group has a specific ‘No Ball Games’ policyand, at the present time, there is no handbook for tenants. However, Thirteen Group’sAnti-Social Behaviour policy was reviewed in June 2016 and states “The Group expectsits tenants to take their own reasonable steps to resolve issues between themselves –such as neighbour disputes, parking issues, young children playing, etc (although this isnot a definitive list). Advice may be given where it is not a matter for the Group to beinvolved.”

10.4 Where a resident reports a problem relating to ball games, this is investigated toestablish the level of nuisance involved. If the reported behaviour constitutes anti-social behaviour (such as damage, harassment or alarm being caused), appropriatesteps are taken to deal with the issues within current housing legislation and theGroup’s tenancy agreements. Where perpetrators of the nuisance are not tenants ofthe Thirteen Group, referrals are made to the appropriate channels such as the LocalAuthority’s Community Safety Team or local Community Police.

10.5 Since April 2016, the Group has recorded ten cases of anti-social behaviour where anelement of the complaint includes the playing of ball games, or damage caused by afootball.

10.6 In relation to the use of No Ball Games signs, the Panel heard that there are a numberof old signs in-situ, mainly from Tees Valley Housing, but no new signs have beenerected for at least two years in Middlesbrough. The Group intends to remove thesigns in due course as part of its wider brand signage programme.

10.7 The Group’s standard tenancy agreement includes a section on Nuisance,Discrimination and Other Harassment which includes a reference to playing footballclose to someone else’s home. It is a wide definition but allows Thirteen to deal with

4


Page 18 of 32

complaints in a reasonable and proportionate manner. (A copy of this is attached atAppendix 2.)

11. For further information in respect of the Scrutiny Panel’s investigations and findings, please see the attached Appendices 3 and 4 – extract of minutes of panel meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

12. The Scrutiny Panel reached the following conclusions in respect of its investigation:-

Draft conclusions to be circulated at the meeting and determined by the Panel.

RECOMMENDATIONS

13. To be determined by the Panel.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

14. The Environment Scrutiny Panel would like to thank the following people for theirassistance with its work:-

G Field – Assistant Director: Environment, Commercial and Property Services (EPCS) K Garland – Head of Environment, EPCS J Parry – Environment Services Manager, EPCS W Langley – Service Performance Officer, EPCS J Pearce – Community Safety Officer, Community Safety G French – Middlesbrough & South Area Manager, Thirteen Housing Group

BACKGROUND PAPERS 15. The following sources were consulted or referred to in preparing this report:-

- Reports to, and minutes of, the Environment Scrutiny Panel meetings held on 9 February and 9 March 2017.

- Report to, and minute of, the Highways and Transportation Committee held on 21 January 1997.

- Tamworth Borough Council – advice on anti-social ball games.- Middlesbrough Council’s leaflet: ‘Guidance on football nuisance’.- Thirteen Group – standard tenancy agreement in relation to Nuisance, Discrimination

and Other Harassment.

COUNCILLOR DENISE ROONEY - CHAIR OF ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL -2016/17

The Membership of the Scrutiny Panel for 2016/17 is as follows: Councillors: D Rooney(Chair), T Higgins (Vice-Chair), Biswas, Cole (until 27 February 2017), Coupe, Dean,Goodchild, Saunders and Uddin.

5


Page 19 of 32

Contact Officer: Joanne DixonDemocratic Services OfficerDemocratic ServicesTel: 01642 729713Email: [email protected]

6


Page 20 of 32

mailto:[email protected]

Guidance on football

nuisance

Page 21 of 32

mlx100

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX 1

Tips for keeping the peace

Footballers and Parents

• Respect other residents right to a peaceful and safe environment. Not

everyone will enjoy your game as much as you.

• Teenagers and young adults, if you’re having a match then head to the park.

• If you have to play in the street, use a soft ball to prevent damage to your

neighbours fences, gardens and cars. Ask before retrieving your ball or

items from other people’s gardens.

• Where possible play outside your house not anybody else’s.

• Keep the ball down and do not let your game become anti-social.

• Don’t use foul or abusive language.

• Beware of your own safety and the safety of other road users.

• Small grassed areas outside homes may only be suitable for younger

children.

• Parents, check where your children are playing and make sure other

residents are not disturbed.

• Compromise, talk and agree with your neighbours on a time and a place for

your games.

Residents, Spectators and Passers-by• Playing ball games is not anti-social behaviour. • Respect people’s right to play in their own neighbourhood. • Remember parents/guardians may wish their young children to play near to home. • Expect, within reason, the noise of the children playing after school, at weekends and in the evening, especially in residential areas. • “No ball games” signs are a request not a bylaw. • It is not illegal to play football on a grassed verge or open space. • Sometimes it is better for young people to divert their energies into playing sport rather than doing other things. • Open spaces are for the use of everyone, including children.

Page 22 of 32

Guidance on football nuisance

Though playing football does cause considerable annoyance to residents, it is not considered that anti-social behaviour legislation, which is mainly governed by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is appropriate for dealing with this problem.

Can any action be taken? The action we can take is limited when considering the above unless the nuisance is accompanied by separate and serious anti-social behaviour, however residents can consider seeking advice from their local safer neighbourhood policing teams.

What laws apply? With regard to balls being kicked and hitting cars and other property, the

legislation that could be considered would be Criminal Damage under Section

1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971. Criminal Damage can be a deliberate or

reckless act. In cases such as this, a deliberate act could not be proved. This

leaves us with the reckless possibility. In such circumstances to prove that the

act was other than an accident would be virtually impossible.

Where young people then go uninvited onto property to say for example

collect their football, it is “Common Trespass”. All that is available is for the

house owner, landlord or tenant to take action at County Court to seek an

order restraining a named person from entering their property.

Page 23 of 32

Are all ball games a problem?

Ball games are a lot of fun for the young people playing them, but can become

a source of disturbance for others and so can cause a lot of friction in

neighbourhoods that would otherwise be very peaceful.

Children have a right to play as well as a need to enjoy physical exercise and

interaction with other youngsters. Play is crucial to a child’s development as a

social, confident member of society and should be encouraged. However,

everyone has a right to enjoy their home and know that their property is safe

and have a right to be treated respectfully.

Middlesbrough is home to a lot of young people and has many open green

areas that might seem ideal as a venue for a game. Many of these green

spaces are in residential areas and there is often only a small distance

between greenery and residents’ gardens, walls and garages. This is why

complaints can arise.

It is also very important to remember that even quiet residential roads are

used by cars. If a moving vehicle has to swerve to avoid either a ball or a child

the results could be serious or even fatal.

Football and other ball games are NOT anti-social behaviour. In most of the

complaints we receive it is not the playing of ball games that is the problem,

rather the manner in which they are conducted.

If you are experiencing any other incidents of anti-social behaviour or you want to discuss the matter further please contact the team on :01642 728751/ 01642 728367www.middlesbrough.gov.uk/communitysafetyHelpful contact numbersCitizen Advice Bureau Middlesbrough 08444994110Unite Mediation 01642 311633Cleveland Police 01642 326326 or 101

Page 24 of 32

APPENDIX 2

Thirteen Group’s standard tenancy agreement includes the following section onNuisance, which includes a reference to playing football close to someone else’shome. Whilst this is a fairly wide definition it does allow us to deal with complaintsin a reasonable and proportionate manner.

Nuisance, Discrimination and Other Harassment

You (or anyone living with You or visiting Your Home or locality, includingchildren) must not:-

do anything or allow anything to be done which causes, or is likely tocause, a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to any person living in,visiting or otherwise engaging in unlawful activity in your home of theirhome or in the locality;

Examples of nuisance, annoyance or disturbance could include, but are notlimited to:-

persistent or prolonged playing of loud music; arguing and door slamming;dog barking and fouling; offensive drunkenness; selling of drugs or drugabuse; rubbish dumping; undertaking major car repairs; playing ball gamesclose to someone else’s home; discarding litter; throwing stones; use of airrifles and pellet guns;

examples of unlawful activity could include, but is not limited to:-

money laundering, housing a cannabis farm, dealing in illegal substances(regardless of classification), animal abuse.

Page 25 of 32

APPENDIX 3ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL

A meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel was held on 9 February 2017.

PRESENT: Councillor D Rooney (Chair); Councillors Biswas, Cole, Dean, Goodchild andUddin.

OFFICERS: J Dixon, G Field, K Garland, J Parry and W Langley.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of Councillors Coupe, Higgins andSaunders.



** MINUTES

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel held on 12 January2017 were submitted and approved as a correct record.

NO BALL GAMES SIGN POLICY – INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The Chair introduced the Panel’s next topic for review, ‘No Ball Games Sign Policy’, which had beenselected from the Panel’s Work Programme for 2016/17. The objective was to examine whether theCouncil’s current policy on No Ball Games signs remained appropriate and whether the current policyand procedures remained effective.

G Field, Director of Environment, Property and Commercial Services, K Garland, Head ofEnvironment Services, J Parry, Environment Services Manager and W Langley, Service PerformanceOfficer, were in attendance at the meeting to present information in relation to the current policy andprocedures regarding no ball games signs.

The Head of Environment Services presented the submitted report which had been circulated to thePanel prior to the meeting.

It was noted that the Council’s current policy had not been reviewed since 1997 and the currentprocess for dealing with requests for no ball games signs was lengthy – often taking several monthsfrom the point a request was received to an actual sign being put up. There were currently 31outstanding requests for signs.

The report provided details of the current process used for determining requests. A HighwaysInspector was required to attend the area for which the sign had been requested to ascertain whetherthe application could proceed (as signs could only be erected on public highways). Once it had beendetermined whether the request was valid, the applicant and any other affected residents would benotified and invited to attend their local Community Council meeting. Any relevant applications wereforwarded to the Secretary of the appropriate Community Council where a decision would be made asto whether the sign should be erected in the location requested.

The Panel was informed that the signs were not legally enforceable although Police / Street Wardenscould attend any issues relating to ball games to assess whether the behaviour was anti-social.

The Panel also heard that neighbouring local authorities, Redcar and Cleveland and StocktonCouncils, no longer put up the signs as they considered them to set false expectations for residentsas they had no legal powers.

The Head of Environment provided the Panel with information contained on Tamworth Council’swebsite which offered advice in relation to ball games. It highlighted that all children and young

Page 27 of 32

people had the right to interact with other young people and to play in their own neighbourhood, andalso that everyone had the right to enjoy their home, to feel safe and be treated respectfully. Itoutlined acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and suggested ways of resolving issues at a locallevel.


It was acknowledged that there was often a public perception of anti-social behaviour associatedwith young people playing ball games, however, this was not always the case and sometimes itwas more an issue of tolerance, with a balance needing to be struck within communities as towhat was acceptable and what was not.

In response to a query it was stated that, since September 2015 to date, there had been 31requests for no ball games signs which remained outstanding. The last signs to be erected wereprior to September 2015 when three out of nine sign requests were approved.

In response to a question, the Panel was advised that it was not known exactly how many signsexisted in Middlesbrough as some people put up their own signs.

The Panel was advised that when Environment Services received a complaint from a resident inrelation to ball games being played and causing a nuisance, this would be referred to theCommunity Safety Team who would contact the complainant to assess whether anti-socialbehaviour was taking place. In the majority of cases, this was sufficient to resolve the issuewithout a request for a no ball games sign being processed.

Whilst it was noted that no ball games signs were not legally enforceable, the Panel considered itwould like to hear from the Council’s Community Safety Team, from an anti-social behaviourperspective, as to whether it considered the signs had any impact on their work and whetherceasing to put up any additional signs in the future was likely to impact on the levels of complaintsthey dealt with in relation to anti-social behaviour. It was also suggested that a housingassociation, such as Thirteen, be invited to the next meeting to provide their perspective inrelation to the signs and to find out whether they had their own policy in relation to no ball gamessigns.

The Chair thanked the officers for their attendance and for the information provided.

AGREED as follows:-

1. That the information contained within the submitted report, and provided verbally at the meeting,be noted and considered in the context of the Panel’s investigation.

2. That representatives from the Council’s Community Safety Team and Thirteen Housing Group, beinvited to the Panel’s next meeting to provide their perspective in relation to No Ball Games signs.

Page 28 of 32

APPENDIX 4ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY PANEL

A meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel was held on 9 March 2017.

PRESENT: Councillor D Rooney (Chair), Councillor Higgins (Vice Chair); CouncillorsBiswas, Coupe, Dean and Goodchild.

OFFICERS: J Dixon and J Pearce.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: G French, Area Manager: Middlesbrough & South, ThirteenGroup.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of Councillors Saunders and Uddin.



** MINUTES

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Panel held on 9 February2017 were submitted and approved as a correct record.


At its previous meeting on 9 February 2017, the Panel received an overview in relation to its newscrutiny topic of ‘No Ball Games Sign Policy’, presented by the Head of Environment Services.

The Panel was provided with information in relation to the Council’s current policy and procedures inrelation to No Ball Games signs and was advised that the signs are not legally enforceable.

In considering how it wished to proceed with the topic, the Panel decided that it wished to invite arepresentative from the Council’s Community Safety Team to obtain their views in relation to thesigns. The Panel also wished to invite an appropriate representative from Thirteen Housing Group tofind out whether it had a policy in relation to No Ball Games signs and how it dealt with related issues.

J Pearce, Community Safety Officer, Middlesbrough Council, was in attendance at the meeting toprovide further information in relation to No Ball Games signs from the perspective of the CommunitySafety Team.

The Community Safety Officer presented her report to the Panel and emphasised that playing ballgames was not considered anti-social behaviour in itself, however, if a person caused (or was likely tocause) harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as theperson playing with the ball, then consideration would be given to dealing with the nuisance undercurrent legislation – Anti-Social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014).

In terms of the number of ball nuisance complaints received, Members were informed that it wasdifficult to establish the exact number received by Middlesbrough Council as there were often otherbehaviours that formed part of the complaint. Appendix 1 to the submitted report provided the numberof ball nuisance complaints received from 2013 – 2016 and it was highlighted that complaints tendedto be seasonal – rising during the summer and school holiday periods.

The Panel was advised that all reports of ball game nuisance were dealt with on an individual basisand assessed by a Neighbourhood Safety Officer. If the behaviour was deemed not to be anti-socialthen a ‘Guidance on Football Nuisance’ leaflet was sent to all parties involved. A copy of the leafletwas attached at Appendix 2 and it was highlighted that the Neighbourhood Safety Team had used theleaflets since 2014 and Officers had reported a reduction in the number of ball nuisance complaints.Referrals to Unite Mediation had been used over the past three years bringing parties together to

Page 29 of 32

resolve the issues, however, this service would no longer be freely available in Middlesbrough after 31March 2017. Community Agreements had also been used in the past whereby parties signed up to arange of acceptable behaviour practices. This process was very resource-intensive for Officers andnot always sustainable when people moved on.

It was highlighted that where the Neighbourhood Safety Officer deemed a nuisance complaint to beanti-social behaviour, appropriate advice and support would be offered to the complainant, includingkeeping a diary of incidents and liaison with Police where criminal matters had taken place, andenforcement action against any person identified as a perpetrator of the nuisance.

The Community Safety Officer advised that there were currently five Neighbourhood Safety Officersacross Middlesbrough. One of the Officers was currently absent due to sickness, but of the fourOfficers she had spoken to regarding ball game nuisance, all agreed that the number of initialcomplaints had not changed significantly, however, once the advice leaflets on ball game nuisancehad been sent to complainants, they had noticed a significant reduction in repeat complaints whichresulted in much less of their time being taken up with such issues. In conclusion, the NeighbourhoodSafety Officers considered that the leaflets worked well. Opinion was divided between the Officers inrelation to whether No Ball Games signs were beneficial. Officers acknowledged that the signs couldraise expectations of residents as they expected action to be taken but the signs were notenforceable. However, two of the four Officers stated they felt they received fewer complaintsregarding ball game nuisance where the signs were in place.


In relation to the Guidance on Ball Game Nuisance leaflet, it was clarified that the leaflets weresent to complainants and perpetrators (if known) when a complaint had been made. The Panelsuggested that the leaflet should be made available on the Council’s website and should also becirculated to all Community Councils.

It was clarified that where it was clear that an initial complaint included anti-social behaviour aswell as ball game nuisance, the anti-social behaviour would be dealt with separately and athorough investigation would be undertaken. Priority was given to repeat and vulnerablecomplainants.

AGREED as follows:-

1. That the information provided within the submitted report, and verbally at the meeting, be notedand considered in the context of the Panel’s investigation.

2. That the Council’s “Guidance on Football Nuisance” leaflet be circulated to all CommunityCouncils for information and be added to the Council’s website.


The Chair acknowledged that the Panel had decided to invite a representative from Thirteen HousingGroup, as one of the biggest landowners in Middlesbrough, to find out whether its approach to the useof No Ball Games signs and dealing with ball game nuisance mirrored the Council’s approach.

G French, Area Manager Middlesbrough and South, Thirteen Group, was welcomed to the meetingand presented his report to the Panel, which had been circulated prior to the meeting.

It was highlighted that Thirteen Group managed more than 11,500 properties in Middlesbrough whichwere currently owned by four landlords within the group. Thirteen Group owned 1.5 million squaremetres of land in Middlesbrough. Erimus Housing was the largest of the landlords in terms of stockand was also the main land-owner of property curtilage and communal areas and was responsible forthe maintenance and management of those spaces.

In relation to issues arising from ball games nuisance, the Panel was advised that none of thelandlords within the Thirteen Group had a No Ball Games Policy or a tenant’s handbook at the currenttime. The Group’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy was reviewed in June 2016 and stated that the Group

Page 30 of 32

expected tenants to take reasonable steps to resolve issues between themselves, such as neighbourdisputes, parking issues, young children playing, etc. Thirteen Group supported children of all ages toengage in play within the neighbourhood that they lived, within reason.

It was explained that if a tenant/resident reported a problem with ball games, it would be investigatedto establish the level of nuisance involved. Factors such as damage, harassment or alarm beingcaused would constitute anti-social behaviour and would be dealt with accordingly by anti-socialbehaviour officers.

The Panel was informed that there were a number of old ‘No Ball Games’ signs in-situ, mainly put upby Tees Valley Housing. Thirteen intended to remove the signs as part of a wider brand signageprogramme and had not erected any new signs in Middlesbrough for more than two years.

Since April 2016, there had been 10 reports of anti-social behaviour where an element of thecomplaint included playing of ball games or damage being caused by a football. None of these caseshad required serious intervention.

Paragraph eight of the submitted report provided the wording included in Thirteen’s standard tenancyagreement in relation to nuisance, discrimination and other harassment which included a reference toplaying ball games close to someone’s home.

The Area Manager stated that, as a landlord, Thirteen could only manage its tenancies within theterms of housing legislation and tenancy agreements and did not tend to rely on advisory signs butwould hope to work with residents to resolve any disagreements. The majority of cases could beresolved through direct discussions with the concerned parties, however, where a perpetrator was nota Thirteen tenant, the local authority or local police would be involved if appropriate.

The Area Manager commented on the Council’s Guidance leaflet in relation to football nuisance andstated that he would like to discuss further with the Community Safety Officer with a view to Thirteenpotentially producing something similar.


In response to a query, the Community Safety Officer stated that the signs raised expectations ofresidents but were not legally enforceable and that many residents expected enforcement actionto be taken where signs existed, however, this was not possible.

The Area Manager agreed that the signs were purely advisory and added that although Thirteenplanned to take down signs as part of its sign branding exercise, this would not be done withoutconsultation with relevant parties in each locality.

The Community Safety Officer felt that a blanket approach of taking down all existing signs wouldnot be appropriate and that each locality should be considered on its own merits and work wouldbe required within the community to assess what should happen as sometimes the signs acted asa deterrent. This process would involve discussions with residents living in close proximity to thearea and the local Neighbourhood Safety Officer.

The Panel considered it important to convey the message that children should not be preventedfrom playing safely within their community but to ensure that they were considerate and respectfulof other people’s property and did not cause nuisance or distress to others. Residents should bemade aware that No Ball Games signs were not legally enforceable but action would be takenagainst perpetrators of anti-social behaviour.

The Chair thanked the Community Safety Officer and the Area Manager, Thirteen Group, forattending and for the useful information provided.

The Panel held a discussion around the information it had received to date and considered it did notrequired any further information and should proceed with formulating its Draft Final Report. The Paneldiscussed possible conclusions and recommendations for inclusion within its Draft Final Report whichwould be submitted to the Panel’s next meeting.

Page 31 of 32

AGREED as follows:-

1. That the information provided within the submitted report, and verbally at the meeting, benoted and considered in the context of the Panel’s investigation.

2. That the Panel’s Final Report on its review of the Council’s No Ball Games Signs Policy, bedrafted and considered by Panel at its next meeting on 6 April 2017.

Page 32 of 32

environment scrutiny panel date: thursday 6 april 2017...

Documents