Agenda item

A report of the Head of Neighbourhood Services to ensure that the statutory responsibility to scrutinise the Community Safety Partnership, at least every 6 months, is undertaken effectively and to ensure the continued monitoring of incidences of crime in Charnwood.

Considered a report of the Head of Neighbourhood Services providing a review of the work of the Community Safety Partnership so that the statutory responsibility to scrutinise the Community Safety Partnership (CSP), at least every six months, was undertaken and to ensure the continued monitoring of incidences of crime in Charnwood and the identification of issues requiring further scrutiny (if any) (item 7 on the agenda filed with these minutes).

The Cabinet Lead Member for Communities, Safety and Wellbeing and Chair of the CSP, the Head of Neighbourhood Services, the Community Safety Manager and Sergeant Latham assisted with the consideration of the report.

The following provides a brief summary of the Board’s scrutiny of this matter, including responses given to questions:

(i)         The role of retailers in helping to reduce shoplifting was discussed, together with the position taken by some of those retailers, the measures that could be taken to reduce incidences, the guidance the Police provided to retailers, the work the Police were undertaking in respect of prolific shoplifters, and the range of penalties for shoplifting and how those were decided.

(ii)        Figures set out in the report did not always appear to be consistent with those presented previously, examples of which were given.

(iii)       Concern was expressed regarding the increase seen in burglaries over the period.  It was noted that only a few additional burglaries could result in the percentage figures showing a significant increase and that, for example, the release from prison of a single individual could significantly affect matters.

(iv)       It was important that fear of crime was not fuelled by the way crime and work to reduce it was discussed and reported.

(v)        The position with Police resourcing of beats was explained.

(vi)       Individuals could assist in preventing some crimes, examples of which were given. The local knowledge of councillors was also helpful.

(vii)      Some factors affecting crime levels were outside of the control of the Council and the CSP and were matters for the Government to address.  The CSP was restricted by the resources it had available and could only work to make most effective use of those.

(viii)     It was very difficult to assess what impact the activities being undertaken by the CSP were having on crime, in particular what was effective and what wasn’t.  Officers tried to illustrate that in the report as far as was possible.  Explanation was provided of the ever-changing position with crime, in particular in relation to individual repeat offenders and how as one received a prison sentence, another was released, and the effect that had on the level of different crimes.  A targeted approach was being taken, based on individuals causing the most harm, examples of which were given, and on key issues impacting crime levels, such as drug misuse, knife crime and vulnerable adults and youths.  The focus was continually assessed and changed as required.

(ix)       As detailed in the report, Charnwood CSP was the best performing CSP in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland in 2017/18, recording a 12.6% all crime increase (against a 23% all crime average increase).  It was suggested that crime levels would be much worse without the effective, targeted work being undertaken by the CSP.

(x)        Reference was made to the value of a collective approach to making use of all tools available to partners, an example being civil injunctions.  Also, to the increase in crime figures caused by successful activity to target and reduce it, such as finding knives as a result of searches.

(xi)       The position in respect of anti-social behaviour caused by youths who gathered in Loughborough town centre was discussed, including the approach being undertaken to address that, whether that was sufficient and having an effect based on conflicting reports, and that those youths also travelled to other locations.  

RESOLVED

1.            that the report be noted;

2.            that future reports to the Board are based on the position at a single point in time, if possible.

Reasons

1.            To acknowledge the work undertaken by the Community Safety Partnership and to ensure that the statutory responsibility to scrutinise the Partnership is met.

2.            The Board acknowledged that those providing information for the report were trying to provide information that was as up to date as possible.  However, focusing on the position at a single point in time would provide a more consistent and user-friendly report for its purposes.