Agenda item

A report of the Head of Neighbourhood Services to scrutinise the Community Safety Partnership (statutory responsibility at least every 6 months).

Considered, a report of the Head of Neighbourhood Services to scrutinise the Community Safety Partnership, statutory responsibility to do so at least every 6 months (item 6 on the agenda filed with these minutes).

Assisting with consideration of the report: Community Safety Manager, Inspector Oswin (Leicestershire Police), Cabinet Lead Member Community Support and Equalities.

Summary, key points of discussion:

(i)      Report was presented by Cabinet Lead Member.  She wished for the record to thank the previous Charnwood NPA Commander, Inspector Botte for his contribution.

(ii)     Reference agenda page 12, key locations for crime volume Beats 62 and 65, stated problem with engagement from partners. Reason for?  In response, was CCG and Fire Service.  Action taken to make clear statutory responsibility.   

(iii)    Increase in shoplifting, reason for and where occurring?  In response, was challenge in town centre, targeted via Loughborough Central Delivery Group, focus on key individuals and actions taken outlined.  Noted, increase compared against lockdown period previous year.   

(iv)    Increase in violence with injury, causes? In response, outlined what that included, any injury.  Increase nationally, lockdown/Covid significant factor, domestic violence, pubs re-opening.

(v)     Recent changes to improve recording by Leicestershire Police and reason for that outlined.

(vi)    How were Police beats determined?  Covered wide areas, therefore not known if reported problems were in specific Borough ward or not, could this be indicated to assist?  In response, had tried to align with Borough ward boundaries, but beat may include more that one ward. Focus given to and action taken in respect of key locations for crime volume outlined.  Aimed to make best use of available resources.  Importance of good data to assist that.  Would look to make information more specific to locations where possible, but resource implications noted.

(vii)   Recent news that CCTV camera to be installed in Queen’s Park, not aware of problem in that location?  In response, followed approach from Police and Crime Commissioner via Home Office, funding granted specific to issue of violence against women, locations identified by Police.

(viii)  Overall increase in crime, what driving? Also, position in family group worse.  In response, challenges outlined including significant Police staff changes, work to mentor less experienced officers.  Need for refocus, all partners to engage, improved offender management.  Considerable issue with substance misuse in Borough.

(ix)    Beat 58, increase in burglaries, perpetrators since charged and imprisoned, however need for reassurance of communities during the process.  Suggested Community Safety Partnership might look at how that could be improved, noted. Also, useful if social media campaigns emailed out to councillors to share through local networks.

(x)     Beat 61, useful to know hotspots, anecdotal evidence suggested Syston, could Police presence be looked at?  Confirmed that policing team dedicated to Syston, should be presence there daily.  Brief outline of issues specific to settlements covered by that beat.

(xi)    Why had Drugs Strategy not been effective in recent times? How many referrals made to the Channel, had those all been accepted?  In response, associated funding stream for partners ended but should still be engaged.  Importance of signposting to recovery services.  Reducing crime required the tackling of substance misuse.  Enforcement needed where support not successful.  Refocus required, that would be recommended for 2022/23.  Regarding Channel, there had been several referrals in Borough, latest update to JAG reported 9, predominantly via educational settings, none by JAG.  Channel explained as early intervention initiative for individuals at risk of extremism.  

(xii)   Number of community triggers a concern, what action being taken?  In response, number received outlined, approximately one every six weeks, much more than other districts.  Duty bound to signpost repeat victims to community trigger not just include information on website. Planned work to understand better, were repeat themes, more joined up approach needed among partners to tackle and by identified leads.  Education of staff around risk assessing.  Likely to be more community triggers, prevention best approach.

(xiii)  Reference to family group, unclear why grouped as were, no clear similarities.  How used by officers, which were good, was good practice shared?  In response, based on similar demographics, challenged that not all were university towns, effect on crime.  Did seek out good practice, no obvious gaps in what Charnwood doing.  Recording practice could be affecting.     

(xiv)  View that good work being done in difficult circumstances, all involved thanked for that.

(xv)  Regarding anti-social behaviour, particularly in area covered by Beat 62 which had seen considerable increase.  Concentration of student HMOs and associated issues.  What action being taken/planned?  How would new HMO licensing assist/be enforced?  How was existing Public Space Protection Order enforced?  In response, initiatives in Op Lexical outlined, multi-agency CSP response to crime and anti-social behaviour associated with student population in area.  Included weekly partners meeting, identification of repeat cases, most at risk, incremental and firm action against perpetrators outlined.  Cumulative impact on permanent residents recognised, doing all could against those causing harm.  Tackling problems via landlords welcomed as approach, consistent factor.  Purpose of and position with Public Space Protection Order explained, including importance of recording data and robust enforcement.  Student Street Support Scheme also operated, good value.

(xvi)  How linked up were Council’s ASB team and Police in respect of reports entered on to the Sentinel system?  Concern that former not always aware of a report when councillor contacted regarding.  Limitations to system, didn’t always flag up repeat incidents?  In response, background to Sentinel outlined, case management system.  Allowed alert of partner agency, not always being used as should be, user/training issue.  Better training proposed, new case management module from Sentinel would assist, also flagging of alerts so action taken.

(xvii) The Council’s Head of Strategic and Private Sector Housing was in attendance for the next item on the agenda. As the issue of HMO licensing had been raised, she outlined the two schemes due to be implemented, in particular requirements on licence holders in relation to anti-social behaviour by tenants.  Guidance on the schemes would be available in due course.

(xviii) Those attending to assist with the report were thanked for their clear and honest responses.  Inspector Oswin was asked to pass on the Committee’s best wishes to the PCSO Rita Purkayastha who had been seriously injured while on duty in Charnwood.

(xix)  Confirmed that, although not specifically listed on agenda page 15 (beat areas), Walton on the Wolds and Cossington were covered.                           

RESOLVED that the report, discussion and responses be noted.

Reason

Finance and Performance Scrutiny Committee has been allocated the statutory responsibility to ensure that effective scrutiny of the work of the Community Safety Partnership takes place.