Concession in wet house row
A council housing chief is looking at commissioning new research into Bath's street drinking problems before going ahead with a controversial safe haven for drinkers in the city.
A petition signed by around 400 people was presented to a meeting of Bath and North East Somerset Council last night, protesting at plans for a so-called wet house and homelessness hostel in James Street West.
-
street drinking
A building used by the Genesis Trust is currently the preferred location for a facility which would replace the existing Julian House night shelter in Manvers Street.
But local residents and businesses are furious at the choice of the site, saying the putting a wet house at the scheme - aimed at vastly improving services for the homeless - would turn the clock back on years of progress in improving the look and image of nearby Kingsmead Square.
An attempt to force an emergency debate on the issue at the full council meeting last night failed, but cabinet member Councillor Vic Pritchard (Con, Chew Valley South) announced a concession in a written answer.
Mr Pritchard is also looking at whether to set up a three-month trial wet house - where street drinkers could congregate and get help for their addiction - in Royal Victoria Park next summer.
In answer to a written question from Councillor Andy Furse, whose Kingsmead seat takes in the James Street West site and who had urged him to look elsewhere for a location, Mr Pritchard said he realised extra work was needed on the subject.
The full text of the answer from the cabinet member for housing and adult social services was: "Street drinking, and the associated anti-social behaviour that is attached to this activity, remains a serious issue of concern for many residents and visitors to Bath.
"To fully tackle this issue the council recognises that further work is required. To that end I am currently examining the possibility of commissioning independent research into the issue. This research will be used to inform our future options, both in the short term and the longer term.
"As you will appreciate ruling out the possibility of a wet garden area in the proposed homeless hostel at James Street West before I have the results of this research would be inappropriate."
Mr Furse said the ruling Tory administration at the Guildhall was being unnecessarily secretive about the scheme.
"Nearly all the business owners and residents who came to speak mentioned the lack of consultation and engagement from the council. One might begin to wonder whether there is more information which will impact businesses and the community which is so far being held back.
"I do, however, welcome the cabinet member's suggestion about 'commissioning independent research' into the wet house scheme and I urge him to make sure any research is shared with the public and businesses in an open and transparent fashion."
The wet house has also raised concerns from pub landlords.
Myles Gallagher of the Bath Pubwatch scheme which aims to promote a safe night-time culture said: "Bath Pubwatch is extremely concerned with the proposed wet house and night shelter on James Street West. Over the last number of years Pubwatch has worked with many local agencies such as Avon and Somerset Police, the B&NES anti-social behaviour team and street marshals to improve the environment in and around Kingsmead Square. We believe that all the improvements made to date will be put in jeopardy if this scheme goes ahead.
"Pubwatch works tirelessly to tackle alcohol-related disorder within the city, and to site a wet house in the middle of an area that has possibly the highest number of off-licensed premises in the city along with a large number of pubs and clubs seems frankly ill thought out."
The council looked at more than a dozen sites before choosing the Genesis building, which would be converted using its own cash and money from social landlord Somer.
Wet houses have proved effective in other cities in tackling street drinking problems.
21 Comments
View all
by Tom Trosborg, Bath
Monday, November 23 2009, 11:14AM
“Mike Mapstone: there's a difference between the biblical parable and your pronouncement that £100 per day is the going rate for the beggars.
Both stories are somewhat unsubstantiated: but one was apparently told as a exemplary story (about helping those who are less fortunate than ourselves), the other was a general, ostensibly factual, statement about how much the beggars in Bath earn, and was presumably intended to show that these people need neither our support nor our sympathy.
The two stories make a fitting contrast.”
by Mike Mapstone, Bath
Monday, November 23 2009, 9:40AM
“So there we have it Tom. I suppose that when told of the parable of the Good Samaritan you dismissed it with; ¿This latter statement is based on one single and obviously highly unusual story that took place many years ago.¿ - implying "So what? - That which those violent thieves did could have been done by any one of us, there but for the grace of God went Tom T. STRICTLY METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING (see OED) I am minded as the Private Eye taxi driver, ¿String ¿em up guv, it¿s the only language they understand.¿”
by Tom Trosborg, Bath
Sunday, November 22 2009, 12:54PM
“It's good that Mike Mapstone has now clarified his earlier "I'm told £100 a day is par for the course" with the more believeable "(...) these scumbags (sic) can pull in up to £100 a day ", although even this latter statement is based on one single and obviously highly unusual story that took place many years ago.”
by Mike Mapstone, Bath
Saturday, November 21 2009, 6:40PM
“"Or facts versus fear. And you can't find one local authority in which the idea hasn't worked." .Correction Sulis, You can't find one local authority that doesn't 'CLAIM' that it works. All such claims I have located are followed by residents letters saying otherwise. For example, BANES 'claims' the Spa is a success without any firm evidence whatsoever. What is firm is that it is costing taxpayers a million pounds a year to subsidise and we are getting a massive debit return on a multi-million pound investment.”
by dean, bath
Saturday, November 21 2009, 3:45PM
“If the council are serious about making 15% cuts, then maybe they could start with this ridiculous idea, or better still spend the money on extra police to move these drunks on. They should be”
by Sulis, Kingsmead
Saturday, November 21 2009, 2:45PM
“" All local authorities claim success. All residents' letters on the issue condemn out of hand."
Or facts versus fear. And you can't find one local authority in which the idea hasn't worked. Also your claim of universal opposition is disproved by some of the comments on this page.”
by Charles, Bath
Saturday, November 21 2009, 10:43AM
“Wow, there is some naive junk in these comments.
Oh yeah, all these drinkers are just poor helpless souls who deserve millions of pounds in help. The police will ensure that all is well with the new wethouse - yeah, sure they will.
Do you really believe what you say Councillor Pritchard? Or is this some attempt to make the Tories look more compassionate? Why can these drinkers not be removed from town and taken to some wethouse in a location where no-one else is disturbed and which is cheap? When you think of all the genuine good causes that need money, or people who need life-saving treatment right now and are denied it because the government 'can't afford it' how disgraceful it is that we are proposing to spend millions on these drinkers.”
by Happy Days, Midsomer Norton
Saturday, November 21 2009, 8:21AM
“I seem to remember that Somer Housing was mentioned in the original press release. How does this leave them . ?”
by Mike Mapstone, Bath
Friday, November 20 2009, 7:55PM
“Let me put you in the real picture Tom T. I'll start by asking if anyone near and dear to you has been the victim of the seamy side of life. It is all a matter of perspective. Let me tell you a true story demonstrating this. Many years ago a young woman was up before the Bristol magistrates for theft. The police opposed bail ¿ she was a bad lot. A charming, middle aged lady, (A court do-gooder) raised an objection and pleaded that it was unthinkable that the poor girl should be incarcerated in such a manner before trial. She offered to stand bail and in fact, offered to give the accused a home until her return to court. The magistrates acceded. That night the 'poor gir'l got word to her boyfriend who came around with Bedford 30 cwt.and they knocked off everything that wasn¿t nailed down. The charming lady changed her tune somewhat the next day; the only punishment she didn¿t wish upon the miscreants was disembowelling. Whilst you are banging on about; "There but for the grace of God¿it could be anyone of us - "talk for yourself. Aggressive begging is only half a step away from demanding money with menaces
How do I know these scumbags can pull in up to £100 a day ¿ there should be a clue in the foregoing.”
by Will Sandry, Oldfield Park
Friday, November 20 2009, 6:59PM
“I also find myself in the unusual position of largely agreeing with the sentiment of Cllr Pritchard¿s post on this story.
To add to his statement I would say that not all street drinkers are homeless and not all homeless people are street drinkers. Very few homeless people choose to be homeless and perhaps I could suggest that those that do have underlying mental health issues and social problems that Julian House seeks to help through its work.
I believe that the correct place for debate on this matter is the Council Chamber, however as the leader of the Council (Cllr Francine Haberling) refused to allow any debate on the homeless shelter replacement last night, perhaps the Chronicle comment board is a reasonable substitute.
Cllr Pritchard knows that I do not support the replacement hostel at the Genesis site, because in my view the site is too small to provide the right facilities for the complex needs of homeless people in the City. My colleagues, Andy Furse and Carol Paradise, the Ward Councillors for Kingsmead have grave concerns, reflecting those of the residents and businesses in the area, that a wet house provision would not be appropriate in this location.
At the September meeting of the Council I gave Cllr Pritchard the opportunity to review all options for the location of the replacement shelter and get back government money to enable other sites to be considered. Please see minute entry 26:
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/committee_papers/Council/CO090910Mins/090910.htm
Unfortunately he and the Conservative administration did not accept this proposal.
I do agree with Cllr Pritchard that a replacement hostel is required, however what has been missing has been any level of consultation with residents or businesses. To make matters worse, there are no firm plans of what a hostel may look like at this site or what facilities may be included.
As plans come forward, I urge Cllr Pritchard to openly provide information to our community, to consult, and to listen.
Cllr Will Sandry
Shadow Cabinet Member for Housing and Adult Social Services”