Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J Cook, Councillor T Lockington and County Councillor Bridgeman.

Resolved:

that the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2022 be signed as a true record.

18.1.     The Chair reported that Agenda Item 7 (report CAC/22/06) had been withdrawn by the applicant.  Claire Staddon, Chief Executive of Emmaus Suffolk, had provided the following update:

“Due to the fluctuating energy crisis, Emmaus Suffolk has decided to stay in Sailmakers and not move to the Great White Horse Hotel this winter. Emmaus Suffolk has built a positive relationship with the new landlord and hope to remain a tenant for the foreseeable future. We will continue to run and fund this service in Sailmakers and will be looking for support to increase the service from Sailmakers for the winter, providing both a safe warm space and activities over more days. Therefore, we have withdrawn this application for funding and will look to submit a revised application to the next committee meeting in November 2022”.

Resolved:

that, subject to Agenda Item 7 (report CAC/22/06) being withdrawn, the Order of Business be confirmed as printed on the Agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

Residents are encouraged to ask questions at Area Committee meetings. Questions will be answered by an appropriate Officer or Councillor.

To ask a question, residents simply need to email areacommitteequestions@ipswich.gov.uk including their name and address, a contact telephone number, their question, and which Area Committee they wish the question to be asked at. We ask that questions be submitted by 10am two working days before the day of the meeting in order that relevant information can be brought to the committee; for this meeting the deadline is 10am on Monday 5 September 2022. 

Questions may be asked by residents without prior notice having been given, with the permission of the Chair, however it may not be possible for an answer to be given at the meeting. Priority will however be given to those residents who have submitted questions in advance.

All questions must either be:

·       relevant to the area committee they are to be asked at, or;

·       relevant to Ipswich as a whole and be asked by a resident of the area covered by the committee it is to be asked at.

Please note that questions or representations must not contain:

·       references to identifiable individuals (whether by name or other information) unless the consent of that individual has been obtained and included with the notification;

·       potentially defamatory or provocative or abusive comments;

·       discriminatory remarks.

If for any reason a question which has been submitted in advance is not able to be asked at a meeting, the Council will, within 14 days of the meeting date, reply to the resident asking the question explaining why and if possible providing a written answer.

20.1.     The Chair reported that the following questions had been submitted by a resident in advance of the meeting:

On Saturday, 21 May 2022, I watched Highway Assurance Ltd workers paint double yellow lines in the passing point gap between resident parking bays along the north side of Ann Street. The passing point was previously unmarked in situ, but marked as no waiting on Suffolk County Council’s Traffic Orders official mapping of the area. The passing point is in Residents’ Parking Zone 2 (RPZ2) and is defined in situ by white end markings to the resident parking bays either side; it extends approximately across the fronts of 30, 32 & 34 Ann Street. The workers who painted the double yellow lines were unable to complete their end markings at 30 Ann Street because a vehicle was parked there. The double yellow lines have been left incomplete ever since. More than three months have gone by.

Why has the vehicle not been removed and the double yellow lines properly completed to the extent shown on the official mapping?

Why did IBC civil enforcement of RPZ2 ignore the anomaly of this no waiting passing point having no appropriate markings for so long?

20.2.     The following response was provided by the Council’s Customer Services Operations Manager:

It was the Council’s usual practice to report any defects or omissions with parking related lining to Suffolk County Council as soon as the Council were made aware of this.

20.3.     The following response was provided by County Councillor Paul West, Cabinet Member for Ipswich, Operational Highways and Flooding:

The relevant Officer at the County Council would visit the site in question and obtain details of the parked car.  The Operations and Enforcement Teams would then take the necessary action to get the matter resolved as soon as possible.

There had been a similar issue recently in Elsmere Road where arrangements were made to legally move an obstructing vehicle to enable a short section of lining works to be completed. Officers would follow a similar process here if necessary.

20.4.     The resident asked why the lack of markings had not been reported before as RPZ2 was regularly patrolled by the Civil Enforcement Officers.

20.5.     Councillor Jones commented that Westgate ward Councillors had been following up parking issues on Ann Street; it was likely that Officers had not spotted the anomaly previously, but once it had been noticed, it had been reported and SCC had taken action promptly.

20.6.     The Chair invited questions from the public.

20.7.     A resident reported that the access to Ipswich Hockey Club on Tuddenham Road was dangerous and there were safety issues when buses/coaches had to queue to turn right into the site due to the gates being locked and the access only providing a 4-metre gap to the gates. Additionally, vehicles would attempt to overtake the queueing traffic with limited visibility due to a hump-back bridge nearby; this was an accident waiting to happen.

20.8.     Councillor Inga Lockington commented that she had previously  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

21.1.     The Chair introduced Inspector Domenic Mann from the Ipswich Central Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) who provided the following policing update.

21.2.     Gang related violence: Additional resource had been allocated to address this issue across the town; most of the problems had arisen from 2 small groups of youths picking fights over social media and seeking each other out. Most of the individuals involved had been identified and were either in prison or on remand under strict conditions.

21.3.     Operation Silverton: Some of the females whose ban had expired had returned to the area; plans had been put in place, with banning orders issued for 12 months.

21.4.     Theft from motor vehicles: 3 unconnected individuals had been arrested and this had reduced offence rates.

21.5.     Summer events in the town, such as Ipswich Music Day, Waterfront Festival and Picnic Trail, had been well received; PC Woodmansee had attended Freshers Week to engage with new students on the University Campus.

21.6.     Crime data: Anti-social behaviour (ASB) was down 9% on the previous year when lockdown restrictions were in place; serious violence was currently half the rate of that experienced in Norwich.

21.7.     The Museum Street Police Station had closed, and the Police had relocated to the new blue-light hub on Princes Street, which was now fully operational.

21.8.     Councillor Kreidewolf was disappointed that Operation Silverton had focused on sanctioning the women who were the victims in this scenario and asked what action was being taken against the men who were seeking out these women.
Inspector Mann commented that the men also received banning orders to exclude them from visiting the area and abusing the women.

21.9.     Councillor Holmes asked whether the gang related violence had arisen from organised crime.
Inspector Mann commented that this was not as a result of organised crime; it was due to groups of youths (16-19 year olds) with no structure.

21.10.  County Councillor Richards highlighted that the Safer Streets Funding had paid for CCTV cameras in the Barrack Corner area to help reduce crime relating to street prostitution.
Inspector Mann commented that there had been a 6-month period with no reports of street prostitution in this area; however, once the banning orders had expired, the women had returned to the area and had continued to refuse the support offered.

21.11.  Councillor Inga Lockington asked whether the street prostitution experienced in the Barrack Corner area had been displaced to another part of the town.
Inspector Mann commented that he was not aware of any similar issues being reported in other parts of the town.

21.12.  A resident highlighted that various crimes were still occurring in the area but were not being reported due to issues with accessing the 101 reporting service, resulting in lengthy delays for residents trying to report non-emergency crimes and calls consequently being abandoned by residents.
Inspector Mann commented that the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) had invested in improving the 101 service; non-emergency incidents could also be reported online, and whilst the response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

This funding request had been withdrawn by the applicant.

23.1.     Ms Kim Trotter, founder of Future Female Society, provided an overview of the Women 2 Women Radio Project that worked with refugees, asylum seekers and migrant women in Central Ipswich to give them a voice in society and teach them a range of transferrable skills within a fun environment.  

23.2.     This project helped its participants to build confidence and self-esteem whilst speaking English as a second language and presented opportunities to work with radio stations and at community events.  A group of 7 women who had previously participated on this project would be volunteering to help recruit and support new participants.

23.3.     Councillor Rae commented that there seemed to be a high proportion of administrative costs (project coordination, project management and project administration) for a relatively small project and questioned the different rates charged for these roles and whether they were delivered by different people.

23.4.     Ms Trotter commented that some of the roles were performed by the same person but had been costed in accordance with the type of activity. Although it was a small project, there were administrative costs associated with providing safe venues and booking studio space and guests.

23.5.     Councillor Jones commented that she had been a previous guest on Woman 2 Woman radio and had seen the benefit of the project; however, the amount requested was more than half of the funding remaining in the Area Committee’s budget.

23.6.     Councillor Inga Lockington asked whether this project only accepted participants from Central Ipswich; otherwise, funding could be sought from other Area Committees.

23.7.     Ms Trotter confirmed that all of the women taking part were from Central Ipswich and the radio studio used was also based in Central Ipswich.

23.8.     County Councillor Richards asked how many participants the funding would support and whether other match funding had been applied for; County Councillor Richards highlighted that South Street Studios had received quite a lot of funding from different sources.

23.9.     Ms Trotter commented that the aim was to work with 15 participants and would look to find funding from other sources; studio space was hired from The Hive, but BBC Radio Suffolk had also contributed in kind to the project in the form of studio time and access to guests.

23.10.  Councillor Gibbs supported part-funding of this project with the added recommendation that other funding sources be explored with the help of the Council’s Community Engagement Officers.

23.11.  Councillor Jones proposed that, in light of limited funds available, a lesser amount of £2,500 be allocated to Future Female Society towards their Woman 2 Woman Radio Project, with the advice that further funding be sought from other sources, and this was agreed.

Resolved:

that the Central Area Committee allocate £2,500 from the Central Area Committee budget to Future Female Society towards the delivery of their Woman 2 Woman Radio Project.

Reason: This radio project supports migrant, refugee and asylum-seeking women in Central Ipswich and teaches them new skills in a safe and fun environment.

24.1.     The Chair commented that this report had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow Councillors to meet to discuss the priorities; unfortunately, this had not been possible. The Chair proposed that the Area Action Plan at Appendix 2 of the report be considered as the template for this year’s Area Action Plan and asked whether there were any amendments to be applied.

24.2.     Councillor Holmes suggested that the reference to mitigating the effects of the pandemic be removed.  Councillor Holmes did not agree with the terminology ‘alleviate deprivation’ and was concerned that as St Margaret’s ward did not feature in the areas of deprivation there would be no opportunity for residents from this area to apply for funding.

24.3.     Councillor Jones commented that although St Margaret’s ward was one of the more affluent areas, there were small pockets of deprivation within this ward.

24.4.     Councillor Riley highlighted that funding applications did not need to meet both sets of criteria, i.e. the application could meet the priorities of the domains of deprivation and/or the priorities of the Corporate Plan.  Councillor Riley noted that ‘deprivation’ was the terminology used within the Government statistics.

Resolved:

that, subject to the removal of the overarching priority referencing the effects of the pandemic, the priorities of the Area Action Plan set out in Appendix 2 of the report be adopted as the priorities for the Central Area Committee Area Action Plan for 2022/23, namely:

·            Domains of Deprivation: ‘Crime’, ‘Education, Skills and Training’ and ‘Health and Disability’

·            Corporate Plan: ‘A Sustainable Environment’, ‘A Healthy Community’ and ‘Safe Communities’

Reason: Priorities provide the basis of an action plan that will enable the Area Committee to clearly communicate its vision and priorities for the area and will help demonstrate how its budget is being allocated to deliver the priorities set for the area.

25.1.     The Chair reported that County Councillor Bridgeman had spoken to Suffolk County Council Fire and Rescue Service about signposting to advice regarding the need for firewalls in the lofts of terraced properties and a link had been added to their website to point to this advice.

26.1.     Councillor Kreidewolf highlighted that one of the Council’s tenant representatives, Mr Sherman, had been nominated for one of the BBC Radio Suffolk’s Make a Difference awards.

26.2.     Councillor Jones reported that Ipswich Museum would be closing for redevelopment from 2 October 2022 and encouraged people to pay a last visit before its closure.

26.3.     Councillor Inga Lockington commented that there had been minor criminal offences occurring over the summer, such as theft from cars, but residents had given up trying to report it.

26.4.     County Councillor Richards commented that she had spoken at Planning Committee in relation to the traffic concerns arising from the hump-back bridge on Tuddenham Road and had raised the matter with County Councillor West.

26.5.     Councillor Riley commented in relation to theft from cars that some people were still leaving their possessions on show in unlocked cars.

26.6.     Councillor Kreidewolf added that residents’ inability to report incidents via the 101 reporting service was resulting in a loss of community intelligence.

26.7.     A resident commented that he was not able to email or use the Police online reporting service, and in light of the issues with the 101 service, had reported incidents via his ward Councillors instead.

27.1.     Justin Jupp, Assistant Director for Sport & Programmes, reported that at the start of the meeting, the Central Area Committee had an unallocated budget of £9,345.26 available to spend on its priorities.

27.2.     Following the financial commitment of £2,500 arising from the approved funding bid, the unallocated Central Area Committee budget was now £6,845.26.

Resolved:

that the financial statement in Appendix 1 of the report be noted.

Reason: To provide clear and transparent details of the amount of funds available to the Area Committee to deliver the priorities in its Action Plan.

·            Wednesday 2 November 2022, 7pm – St Margaret’s ward

·            Wednesday 4 January 2023, 7pm – Alexandra ward

·            Wednesday 1 March 2023, 7pm – Westgate ward

The Chair highlighted that the dates and times of the remaining meetings for 2022/23 were listed on the Agenda, with the next meeting due to take place on Wednesday 2 November 2022 at 7pm.