Kingsway Villagers

Since this website was launched, there have been several discussions about local dogs and dog owners, including: Big Park – Dog Mess, Dog Poo, Dog Fouling
‘Dangerous Dogs’ Unleashed on Kingsway and Kingsway Canine Concerns.

Fred Wood recently posted a link to the City Council’s latest Citylife publication, which included this – very interesting article – on Page 3:

Dog Owners – Follow This Lead.
There are lots of places in and around the city where dog owners can exercise their pets and let them run freely off their leads.
But there are certain areas where the need to be able to do this without ‘undue restriction’ has to be balanced with the requirements to have dog-free ‘zones’ – children’s play areas are one example.
Here’s our handy guide for dog owners about the dos and dont’s of keeping pets on leads:
Dogs on lead
A dog should be kept on a short lead – not more than six foot – when it is being walked along a roadside pavement and any grass verge attached to that pavement.
An owner out with their dog who is asked to put it on a lead by a council officer or a Police Community Support Officer must do so at once.
Dog Exclusion
Dogs should not be allowed to enter any fenced or enclosed children’s play area within any of the city’s parks or green spaces. If it does it must be removed immediately.
Dog Fouling
Dog owners should always pick up after their animals and this applies to all areas of the city that are open to the air and that the public have access to or are entitled to have access to.
Failure to comply with any of these can result in a fixed penalty notice of £75.
Failure to pay will result in a prosecution with a maximum fine of £1,000.
Dangerous Dogs
To own any of the following dogs you must have a certificate of exemption.

• Pit Bull Terrier or pit bull terrier types
• Japanese Tosa
• Dogo Argentino
• Fila Braziliero

Owners of these breeds must be registered at their local police station and have their dogs:

• Micro-chipped
• Tattooed on the inner thigh
• Neutered
• Covered by third party insurance
• They must be muzzled and on a lead at all times in a public place.

The penalty for failing to comply with the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is up to six months in prison and/or a fine of up to £2,000.
In certain circumstances the courts can order the dog to be destroyed.
Lloyd Griffiths, the city council’s environmental protection service manager, commented:
"The vast majority of dog owners are keen to act responsibly. They keep their dogs on leads when they should and clear up any mess they make when it happens.
As is always the case it is the minority that can cause problems and we want them to know that we can and have been taking action against people who act irresponsibly."

There’s also mention of a Gloucester dog owner being fined £350 (plus £150 Costs) for a dog fouling offence!

Good evening all,

Could I thank the little Banksi wannabe through Kingsway Villagers…
If you have to try and be the great Banksi do me a favour and use pen and paper or any other art medium and not my garage door!

The only night I didn’t park my car in front of my garage – behind my house – otherwise would it have been my car I wonder?

So dear parents, have you noticed your little angels coming home with bronzed or orange coloured fingers or stained clothes? Then I have a garage door that needs cleaning!

There have been recent postings about the bus bollard and the imminent changes, (ie: the installation of a traffic camera).

This morning when I went out for a walk, I saw a car turn down the road towards the underpass. Finding the bus bollard in place, the driver stopped at the white “give way” line (meant for bus drivers) and he and his passenger got out. They left the car in the road at the white line, ignoring the double yellow lines, and walked under the underpass. As I was walking the same way, I watched them in disbelief as they headed towards the cash point at the HSBC bank, (any bus coming down the road would have had a problem getting round the car)!

Given the other postings on this site about inconsiderate parking – not to mention the seeming increase in litter around the place at the moment (viz the broken glass and empty bottles around the underpass – yet not a single litter bin in sight), and the lack of social responsibility by those inconsiderate people who don’t clear up after their dogs (another phenomenon on the increase around here, it appears – check the pavements), I’m left wondering whether we’re just unlucky to have a seemingly disproportionate number of people in Kingway who think they can do what they want, (if they leave litter or park where they want, it’s not their problem, someone else can clear it up or be inconvenienced, not them); or whether it’s just a selfish and inconsiderate few who are causing most of the problems for the rest of us… Or whether it’s just a sign of the times.

I read with interest and also confusion regarding anti social behaviour in Kingsway. It seems we all know about it, we all have suggestions on how to deal with it; sadly some of us have experienced it – myself included – but no one has actually dealt with it.

Anti-social behaviour is a very tricky subject and great care should be used when placing blame on people regardless of how they pay for their home. I do wish to make a point though as it seems HA residents tend to get a lot of the blame.

I am HA myself and can honestly say it was a private rented family that caused me distress in the first few months of me living here back in 2008, to the extent that I was going to move and at first thought moving from the village of Randwick to live here was a huge mistake. I am happy here now but this neighbourhood divide still bothers me.

Firstly I would like to point out that all Housing Association tenants are bound by a strict tenancy agreement and do run the risk of eviction if they are anti social. This is made even more of a threat with the proposed plans set out by Housing Minister Grant Shapps on the 11th of January this year… see link.
I do find that most HA residents are very well behaved and cause no problems to other residents because of this fact.

I know that an awful lot of homes in Kingsway are indeed private but not actually lived in by the owners and instead rented out privately. The agreements these tenants have to enter into differ greatly and with most of this being handled by lettings agencies and not the owner themselves, I wonder what stops these people from behaving in an anti social manner. This added with the fact that most of these properties are let on a six-month basis, what stops them from behaving badly in the knowledge that this is not their house and they might not be here long anyway?

I just wanted to point this out and tip the balance a bit in favour of all the decent HA residents. Private renters have no real reason to behave and the threat of eviction is not a real threat to them. They don’t own the house so they tend not to care about how it looks or how they behave. Some of the scruffiest homes in Kingsway are in fact private rented and not Housing Association.

Regardless of how the house is paid for taking pride in how your home looks and the way you conduct yourself is down to the individuals who live there. If you only have six months short term assured tenancy what exactly stops you from behaving in an anti social manner?

Finally private home owners must have been made aware that they would be sharing this little part of the world with people who prefer to rent rather than buy. I run my own business and could if I wanted buy my home. My confusion is merely why do HA tenants get the raw deal, who gives them the bad name and is it just private owners extending there ownership of their homes to the rest of Kingsway?

Kingsway is not a private village and it seems that most of the anti social parking is being committed by private homeowners who believe they have this right because they pay a mortgage. Well hey guess what we pay for our homes too you know, only the bank doesn’t own it, a Housing Association does.

There have been 2 new groups formed, which are concerned with helping us build a “Community” within Kingsway, which should complement the work that the Residents Association is doing.

The First is based on the team that put on the Fun Day in Waterwells last year. We are planning on repeating that event, but are also looking at all the things that can help build a sustainable community and directing effort into boosting those things.

The Second Group is more specifically directly related to ASB and working on reducing the level of ASB within Kingsway.

Both teams have representation from the Residents Association and the Social housing Providers, as well as representation on the ASB group from Police and Project Solace. (Project Solace Chair the ASB group).

Whilst no-one is a fan of the negative press Kingsway has received, one of the advantages is that groups like these are a direct effect of that bad press. I am very keen to make sure that both of these groups work cooperatively otherwise there will be overlap of effort, but that should not be a problem.

Given all the public amenities that should come online this year, as presented by QUVL at the previous public meeting, then these groups have come online at the right time to help us make the most of these things.

As you may be aware, there is now the Police Crime website which shows information about crime and local resources. Looking at Kingsway (For some reason, it is all clumped on Lynham Drive) ASB is by far our biggest issue (12 incidents, as opposed to 8 other crimes), but these are only the reported issues. We know there are many things happen that are not reported, so I would encourage you to report any crimes, either directly to The Police, or through the Community Police Report Form
on this website.

Cheers
Barry

Chair – Kingsway Residents Association

I wish to provide clarity with regard to my recent resignation from the Kingsway Residents Association Committee, after I joined with the clear intensions of finding collective ways forward in stamping-out Anti Social Behaviour in our community – as those who have, and continued to endure serious Anti Social Behaviour…

I have waited until now as I have made every effort to persuade those responsible to investigate the circumstances which resulted in my resignation in protest toward the manner in-which Emily Jones was allowed to make socially dividing & discriminative comments during the last Residents Meeting in Nov’ 2010; comments which were supported by Barry Kirby (Chair) Kingsway Residents Association, and went unchallenged by Cllr: Wood (who was equally present at the meeting). Emily Jones considered residents used “snobbery” when reporting Anti Social Behaviour, and have no idea about the place – nor the Citizen Newspaper!

I registered a complaint with Emily Jones’ Senior Officers within Gloucester City Homes, and the Anti-Social Behaviour Team who are responsible for Project Solace (including Gloucester Police Chief Constable, Mr Tony Melville). Emily Jones was interviewed, and firmly denied ever making the comments. Evidence was later provided – and confirmed by others who recall such comments being made at the meeting (other committee members). Regardless, and thereafter acknowledging such comment was made, Emily Jones (who made the comments in public) refused to apologise in public, or stand down from her highly responsible position of trust in the community after denying she made the comments, and only acknowledged them after considerable effort was made to confirm the comments were fact!

Victoria King-Low (Senior Officer) made no further decision beyond her original interview of Emily Jones. Barry Kirby (Chair) Kingsway Residents Association, acknowledged himself that Emily Jones made the comment – and supported her words. However, he accepted that her comments be removed from the formal minutes of the meeting and rearranged via “discrete wording” in order to prevent them from being seen by the wider community. I made clear my own view of concerns which might be caused if read by the wider community. Mr Kirby stated: "However, I think the point about not necessarily including it in the minutes is fair, in terms of repeating it verbatim, but I think this can be easily achieved by some discrete wording. Her words, whilst right for the context of the meeting, would not come across the same when read cold"!

I was alarmed and totally disgusted by the alteration of the formal minutes of the Kingsway Residents Association, just to protect someone making such disgraceful socially dividing discrimination towards those in the community who suffer, and report Anti-Social Behaviour. I made clear that I wanted no part as a committee member in being involved in this improper behaviour when we are expected to be in place as representatives for – and as part of – this community. I resigned for these reasons, and currently await confirmation from those responsible in providing their final statements, in order for my request for the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate the actions of those who should act responsibly, and not make public statements of this kind or be protected when making such disgraceful statements by their senior officers.

I hope others in this community will consider my actions understandable when having factual awareness of such matters, and equally know that they were receiving selective alteration by others within the committee in order to protect individuals making such comments, instead of protecting those who suffer or need to report suffering Anti Social Behaviour with those who make remarks of this kind and are equally provided a platform by the Kingsway Residents Association, in order to voice them!