It's super caretaker!

Under a new trail blazing scheme, the council caretakers would be drafted on to estates across the district in a bid to sort out a wide range of problems including vandalism, repairs and street lighting.

They would live on the estates and the aim is for them to become the "good neighbours next door."

The council is planning to ask tenants if they want the scheme, which would cost them 95p a week. If they vote 'yes' there would be a one-year pilot scheme on an estate to be chosen.

Housing sub-committee chairman Jim O'Neill has promised full consultation with tenants through various bodies including Neighbourhood Forums.

"We will go by the majority vote. This is a trailblazing scheme and the Council is one of the first to try this in the country, " he said.

Normal caretakers are currently employed supervising and cleaning blocks of flats and maisonettes in the district.

But Councillor O'Neill said: "The super-caretakers would be completely different and the scheme would be self-financing through a service charge."

He said there would also be savings because the new staff would deal with vandalism and the many problems associated with empty properties.

They would be expected to build up a rapport with tenants, organise clean-up campaigns and deal with repairs requests and security.

They would tackle issues including unauthorised parking, rubbish, gritting and setting up neighbourhood watch schemes. If the pilot is a success it would be extended to other estates.

The sub-committee will be asked next week to agree in principle to the scheme and consultation would start immediately with tenants.

The scheme follows proposals to put private police officers on the estate at a cost of 50p per week per family. But the proposal proved controversial and was never introduced because people said they already paid through Council Tax for the police and the system would be unfair because house owners on the estates would not have to pay.

Today, the new project was given a mixed reaction from tenants who felt the scheme could collapse if some people failed to pay the charge. And some were concerned that they already pay Council Tax and the council should look after estates for free.

Holme Wood tenant David Parker said: "I think it is absolutely daft and I would want a lot more facts and figures. This is a large amount of money to pay and I think there could be quite a bit of resistance and resentment.

"I would want to know what was happening to all the money being saved as a result of this caretaking service."

But Pat Walker, 42, who has lived on the Canterbury estate for 20 years, said: "I think it could do a lot of good and I would be pleased to see local people who know the problems and the tenants getting the jobs."

Audrey Raistrick, secretary of Ravenscliffe and Greengates Residents' Association, said: "I think it is an absolutely splendid idea. There are 120 houses empty in this area and they are a very big problem.

"I think the Council should look at other ways of funding it because it's a lot of money for people. I think tenants will say they should have the service, anyway."

Doris Vasey, 72, of Buttholme Gate, Buttershaw, said: "There is a lot of vandalism to properties which have been improved here and I think this is a very good idea. Although I'm a pensioner I would be prepared to pay 95 pence a week for it."

Wynn Beswick, official of the South East Tenants Federation covering an area from Queensbury to parts of Laisterdyke said the subject would be on the agenda for tonight's meeting. "I think there will be mixed feeling about this."

Holme Wood tenant Brian Harrison said: "I think it is a very good idea, but I think the Council will find quite a bit of resistance and resentment. People were quite angry about the 50 pence they were asked to pay for policing."

June Boocock, head of Owlet tenants and residents association, said: "I think the reaction from most people would be half and half.

"It could be a good idea, but then again the council have let us down so many times in the past that I think a lot of people's attitude would be that we pay enough to them anyway without having to pay this too.

"The best way to keep estates policed would be to employ more beat bobbies - people would take more notice of them than of ordinary people."

Barbara Simpson, chairman of Dalwood tenants and residents group said: "I don't think people would pay for the service - they wouldn't pay 50p for the police so why should they pay 95p for a caretaker.

"If these caretakers are going to live on the estates, will the council have enough housing stock to house them?"

Residents and tenants on Bradford's Delph Hill estate had mixed views about the plans.

Jean Whitehead, 72, said: "I wouldn't mind paying the money each week, but would we really see the benefits? I don't think so. It would be money down the drain. Take graffiti - as soon as the Council clean it off it reappears again."

Pauline Barton, 56, said: "A lot of the duties carried out by this so-called super caretaker are already the responsibility of the Council. It makes you wonder why on earth we pay our Council tax? It's just asking tenants to pay twice."

Carol Holt, a private resident, said: "It would be a good idea, but it should I don't think any resident should have to pay extra - choose whether they are private or Council tenants. Why do we all bother paying Council tax?"

Andrew Parkin, 33, said: "What an incredibly stupid idea. It's like Beirut up here - do the Council really think a caretaker will put everything right. And do they really think tenants will pay £50 a year extra? It's just another way of making money. If every tenant pays a pound a week they'll be raking it in."

Paul Bayliss, 35, said: "I doesn't sound a lot but 95p a week makes a big difference to some people. And tenants are being asked to pay it on top of their Council tax bills and rent. As well as costing extra, it seems very unfair. If I pay what about my neighbours who live in private houses? They'll be getting the service for nothing."

Gwen Yale, 31, said: "We already pay Council tax and I am sure a lot of the things this caretaker would be expected to do - like making sure the estate is clean - are already part of the tenancy agreement. It doesn't sound it but £50 a year is a lot of money. It's a waste of money anyway - why not use existing community centres to offer these services?"

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.