Agenda and minutes

Following the agreement at the recent extraordinary meeting of full Council to establish an Overview and Scrutiny Board and convert the former Overview and Scrutiny Committees into Sub-Committees, I thought it may be useful to briefly explain the implications of the change on this Sub-Committee.

In terms of the day to day work of the Sub-Committee, your powers are essentially unchanged. You continue to have the power to scrutinise the same areas and to require Council officers and representatives of the Police to appear before you. You also continue to be free to establish topic groups and conduct your day to day work in just the same way as you have been doing up to now.

A slight change will be in how reports and recommendations arising from the Committee or its topic groups are now dealt with. Once agreed at these meetings, reports and recommendations will firstly need to be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Board. If approved at the next meeting of the Board, the recommendations etc. can then be submitted to Cabinet, the Police, etc. in just the same way as now. The requirement on Cabinet and responsible bodies to respond to such recommendations is also unchanged.

Members will probably be aware that the Chairman of this Sub-Committee is also a member of the Overview and Scrutiny Board and that the Board is politically balanced. It will now become the Board’s responsibility to deal with all requisitions received of executive decisions. Some slight amendments to the introductory text of the Committee’s agendas, to more closely reflect the introduction of the new Board, will be made in time for the Sub-Committee’s next meeting.

Are there any questions?

The Sub-Committee considered a report on the changes to its role following the Council’s decision to create an overarching Overview and Scrutiny Board supported by a number of sub-committees.

The Sub-committee noted the changes.

To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2014 and authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2014 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive a report from Superintendent Cheryl Burden (to follow)

Superintendent Burden advised the sub-committee of the current position with the Local Policing Model. Following the introduction of the Local Policing Model in June 2013 every ward has been allocated a dedicated named PC and PCSO, and a sergeant who was responsible for that ward. Sergeants might supervise more than one ward. For Havering each of the three clusters had been allocated 5 sergeants which meant that one sergeant in each cluster supervised two wards.

In addition to these dedicated teams Havering had a further 3 sergeants, 70 PC’s and 22 PCSO’s. A Town Centre team comprising of 2 PS’s and 14 PC’s had been created to tackle the area where most of the crime and anti-social behaviour took place. The other PC’s were located within cluster based teams which had the flexibility to move across the cluster to deal with emerging crime and disorder issues.

However, under the Local Policing Model these officers had taken on a number of roles and responsibilities which had not previously been in their remit. These included:

·         These officers would investigate low-risk, high volume crime that affected the day-to-day quality of life of local people;

·         Undertook central ‘Aid’ commitments eg public order, football, reassurance patrols in Central London;

·         Appointment cars - Havering currently had one car per cluster resourced 16/7;

·         Hospital guards, crime scene management, constant watches within custody;

·         Resourcing Public Access Points. 6 points within Havering which were open Wednesday and Thursdays 7pm-8pm and Saturdays 2pm-3pm. Superintendent Burden advised that with the approval of the Mayor of London an additional Access Point would be provided in the north of the borough, the days and times to be determined locally. Staffing for this new access point would be shared by all 6 wards in the north cluster;

·         Training new probationary constables during their 10 week street duties course. Havering had received 55 new probationary constables;

·         Backfilling Emergency Response Teams if their levels fell below minimum strengths. The Commissioner had made a commitment that these teams would be maintained at certain levels. Within Havering since LPM we had seen a 30% increase in calls which required an emergency response.

Superintendent Burden reported that Havering police had seen an improvement in response times to emergency calls, they had attended 40% more appointments with victims than they had prior to the introduction of the Local Policing Model, and they had seen a reduction in many types of recorded crimes and some increase in victim satisfaction and detection rates.

However it had been recognised that within communities the public felt that they were getting less policing from their teams. One reason for the lack of visibility might be to do with the shift pattern, which had been designed to meet demand. Commander Lucy D’Orsi had been undertaking a review of the Local Policing Model. She had looked at resourcing, training, structures and why officers were being taken away from doing things that made them more visible.

Commander D’Orsi had looked at the types of incidents that were occurring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To receive a presentation from Diane Egan, Community Safety Team Leader.

The Sub-Committee received a report on the Safety Zone Initiative.

The presentation explained What was a Safety Zone?

·         A safety zone was a Multi Agency intervention in an area of comparatively high residential burglary;

·         The Police, Fire Brigade, Council Departments and Police Cadets were all involved. Other agencies were involved as required;

·         A letter would be sent the week before the day of the event to 200-300 houses explaining the initiative;

·         Residents would be provided with an information pack and prevention equipment. Officers would set up timers and install smoke detectors, not just hand over the pack and equipment. Marker pens would be demonstrated and handed to the resident.

The Sub-Committee asked how a decision was taken as to which area to designate a Safety Zone?

·         Officers advised that as part of the strategic assessment each year when a burglary strategic problem profile was produced;

·         For Havering there was an annual problem  profile refresh;

·         This document identified areas of Havering which suffered disproportionately higher rates of residential burglary than the local or regional average; and

·         The Safety Zone Initiative concentrated on those areas.

Details of the completed Safety Zones were provided for the Sub-Committees information.  Officers informed the Sub-Committee that we had seen a 68.2% reduction in burglary across the Safety Zones. The concern had been that the concentrated effort in the Safety Zones would just push the problem in to neighbouring streets.  The good news was that that the streets adjoining Safe Zones had seen a reduction of 44%. MOPAC had estimated the cost of burglary to services as £3,925, therefore, there was a saving in reduced burglary of £160,925 across all partners.

All partners had seen a benefit from the Safety Zones Initiative and it was expected that it would continue in the new financial year, even if the volume could not be maintained.

The Sub-Committee thank officers for the presentation.

To receive a presentation from Damien Ghela, ASB Reduction Officer.

The Sub-Committee received a detailed briefing on the powers contained within the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Disorder Act 2014. Anti-Social behaviour is defined in the act as:

·         Conduct the HAS caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to ANY person;

·         Conduct CAPABLE of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s OCCUPATION of RESIDENTIAL premises;

·         Conduct CAPABLE of causing HOUSING-RELATED nuisance or annoyance to ANY person.

Details of the various tools available to the Council and its partners was provided to the Sub-Committee. These were:

·         Community Trigger;

·         Community Remedy;

·         Civil Injunction;

·         Criminal Behaviour Orders;

·         Dispersal Powers;

·         Community protection Notices;

·         Public Space Protection Orders;

·         Closure of premises associated with nuisance or disorder, etc.

In addition there were changes affecting Council/Social Housing Tenants. Tenants of Registered Social Landlords (RSL) such as Council or Housing Associations would now face much stronger repercussions should they or their visitors, choose to engage in Anti-Social Behaviour.

Under the new amendments to the Housing Act, if a Tenant of an RSL OR their visitor is found to be:

·         Convicted of a serious offence (qualifying offences were set out in a specified Schedule of the Housing Act);

·         In breach of a Court Ordered Civil Injunction;

·         In Breach of a Court Ordered Criminal Behaviour Order;

·         Convicted of Breaching a Noise Abatement Notice; or

·         Subject to a 48 our Closure Order,

A Judge must grant a Possession Order (if requested) on MANDATORY GROUNDS.

The Sub-Committee thanked officers for their presentation.

To receive a presentation from Diane Egan, Community Safety Team Leader.

The Sub-Committee was advised that MOPAC funding had been secured for three years, and four projects had received funding. These were:

Details of all the schemes were provided which showed the Council and it’s Partners were on course to meet all their outcomes.

The Sub-Committee thanked officers for their presentation.

Councillor John Wood gave a short report on the Criminal Justice Management Conference he had attended earlier this year. He felt that this year the Conference had been very sales oriented but had been impressed with the seminar delivered by Youth Empowerment Services and run by Facilitators with an Offending History Delivering Crime Prevention and Intervention.  

The Sub-Committee thanked Councillor Wood for his feedback.

Officers advised the Sub-Committee that there had been a mixed response from Councillors regarding the proposed visits to Hornchurch and Romford Town Centres. The majority of Councillors on the Sub-Committee and Licensing Committee wished to undertake the visits but most felt the proposed date of 20 December was not suitable.

The Sub-Committee agreed therefore to proceed with the visits on the 20 December with a small number of Councillors, 4/5 and arrange additional visits in the New Year.

The Sub-Committee agreed to hold the first meeting of the Topic Group on Thursday, 27 November 2014 commencing at 6.00pm.