Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Beckley and Councillor Charsley attended as her alternate. 

Councillor Auld declared a personal interest in Item 10 Adult Safeguarding as his wife was a Senior Social Worker.

Councillors Roger Charsley and Harry Stranger declared an interest in Item 10 as Members of the Bromley Safeguarding Adults Board.

To hear questions to the Committee received in writing by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 14^th September 2011 and to respond.

There were no questions from Councillors or Members of the Public.

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of Public Protection and Safety PDS Committee held on 26^th July were considered:

Minute 126 

Susie Clark would provide an update on the newsletter at the Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee in November.

Minute 130 

The letter to the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) and the Local MP’s had been sent but to date no response had been received.

Minute 131

The resolutions 3 and 4 to be altered as follows:

3. Option 2 to be considered for implementation in March 2012 after a pilot of option 3 has been completed

4. A verbal update to be considered at the January meeting.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th July 2011 be agreed.

Report RES11078

Matters arising were considered under the minutes.

RESOLVED that matters arising from previous meetings be noted.

Members considered a report  that provided an overview of the actions taken by the Council in partnership with the police following the public disorder experienced in Bromley on Monday 8 August, 2011, which took place after similar, though more severe, riots in other areas of London. They also received a presentation from the Borough Commander Charles Griggs.

The Chairman addressed the committee.  He reported on how the public disorder had started following the death of a civilian in Tottenham.  This caused local rioting which quickly escalated and spread across the outer London boroughs

Rioting and looting took place in Bromley, Beckenham, Orpington, and the impact of the disorder was felt to a lesser extent in wards such as Biggin Hill, Penge and Cator, Hayes and Coney Hall, Petts Wood and Knoll and Plaistow and Sundridge. In total 16 wards were affected.

The Borough Commander showed a DVD of some of the CCTV footage of the incidents.  The images were very clear and the control room were able to “follow” certain rioters. 

Initially large numbers of Bromley officers had been drafted to cover the disorder in London.  On the day that the incidents happened in Bromley the numbers of available officers were severely reduced.  However he was able to call upon 12 officers, trained in public disorder control, to support the other officers.  A team was assembled to monitor the social network activity, the CCTV control room was put on alert and staff who were not due to be working came in to assist as the service was overstretched monitoring the number of incidents taking place. Messages went to Town Centre Managers and the Glades Shopping Centre was put on “lock down”.

The motivation for the police was to regain control.  Mr Griggs was in contact with the Portfolio Holder and the Director.  The following day all floral arrangements were removed; building sites were cleared or secured as was anything that could be used as a missile. Seventy five officers were deployed every day.  This put out a strong message that any disorder would not be tolerated.

In circumstances such as this the police forces offer “Mutual Aid”.  30 of the 42 Police forces sent officers to the London Area.

After the disturbances the Police and Council officers visited affected businesses that had been targeted to listen to their concerns and discuss what assistance could be given.

The Director of Environmental services than addressed Members. He explained that during the disorder himself, members and partner organisation met 2 or 3 times a day to co-ordinate and monitor the situation.

He explained that one of the main problems was the misinformation on the social network sites.  Most of the reports were not substantiated.

The department worked with the Town Centre Managers to ensure businesses knew how to claim compensation.

He highlighted how useful the CCTV coverage had been to the deployment of the police. Ward Security were drafted in to provide a further uniformed presence on the streets.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

To hear questions to the Public Protection and Safety Portfolio Holder received in writing by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 14^th September 2011 and to respond.

There were no questions from Councillors or Members of the Public.

The Committee noted decisions taken by the Public Protection and Safety Portfolio Holder since the Committee’s last meeting in July.

Decision reference PPS11011 was signed and circulated on 2^nd August and call in expired on 9^th August.  However the Chairman and Portfolio Holder felt that this decision needed to be amended.  A new decision notice would be circulated with the decisions from this meeting.

This amended decision would change the second part of the decision to:

“That option 2 be implemented at the beginning of March following the trial of Option 3 proves unsuccessful.

RESOLVED that the decisions be noted.

The Committee considered a report which gave an update on the latest Community Safety budget for 2011/12.

Members noted that in 2011/12, the decision was made by the GLA to simply ‘passport’ the grant allocations to each Borough based on previous years’ allocation formula. Each local authority was required to submit a detailed spending plan for 2011/12 to the Mayor’s Office for approval and there is a requirement for quarterly progress reports to be submitted to the GLA. The 2011/12 grant resources were 80% of the 2010/11 SSC fund and it is expected that the 2012/13 CS grant will be reduced by a further 50%, making the resultant grant 40% of the 2010/11 grant level. Members noted that a further report would be brought to the October 2011 meeting outlining details of budget saving proposals to meet the reduction in grant expected for 2012/13 in order to set a balanced budget.

RESOLVED that:

1. the report is noted.

2. a further report will be brought back to the October meeting of the Public Protection and Safety Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee.

In May 2011 the findings of an ‘Aligning Policy and Finance’ review carried out by the  Organisational Improvement Team was presented to Cabinet which recommended among other things that the Food Safety function be subject to a review with the aim of saving operating costs.

A review was undertaken by Paul Lehane (Head of Food, Safety & Licensing) and Clive Davison (Assistant Director Public Protection) with the assistance of the Team Coordinators.

Members considered the outcomes of the review and the 2 possible options. With Option 2 they were aware that the loss of an Environmental Health Officer would have implications on the service.  The Team undertook an average of 4.3 inspections per day and if this was added to the number of reviews undertaken it would take the number of visits per day to 5.6.  This workload would not be sustainable if another team member was lost.

The team had already been reduced as one team member had retired and had not been replaced due to the recent budget cuts.

Members then considered options 1a and 1b. They recognised that if the Admin posts were both cut this would mean that qualified staff and divisional administrators would have to carry out these duties.  This would not be possible if Option 2 were agreed.

Option 1b would see a reduction in the responses to complaints about food manufactured, prepared or sold in the Borough. In the review it was noted that a minimal service could be provided for a budget of £6000 with a minimal risk.

Members discussed the options and concluded that option 2 was not the preferred option but that Option 1a and b should be recommended to the Portfolio Holder. 

RESOLVED that:

1.  the review is noted.

2.  that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to adopt options 1a and 1b and that no further action be taken on option 2.

At its meeting on 6^th April the committee had agreed to the establishment of a Mentoring Scheme. The recommendation was greed that £45k per annum for 3 years would be approved to support the initative.

Officers updated Members on the current position.  Due to the recent public disorder and the school holidays there had not been a large take up for the scheme.  However this had increased since the beginning of the new school term and the prediction was that this would continue to increase.

Members noted that all the mentors were volunteers and that each one had more than one case, but this would increase from October 2011 as the number of referrals increased.

The recommendation was for a further report to be brought back to the Committee towards the end of the financial year in January 2012

Resolved that

1. the report is noted

2. A further report is brought back to the January 2012 meeting of the Public Protection and Safety Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee. 

Members considered a report providing an overview of the work carried out by Public Protection and the impact it had on older and vulnerable adults.

The Portfolio Holder had made it clear that this area was a priority in the coming year and the meeting of the Committee in October 2011 would focus on this topic.

Officers and Members felt that certain partner agencies and officers should be asked to make short presentations at the meeting.  This would include: Victim Support, Trading Standards, Bromley Carers, BCEF and the Police.

RESOLVED that the report is noted and the groups listed above are invited to the Public Protection and Safety  Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee  on 25^th October.

Members were presented with a report giving an overview of the main issues raised from the 2010/11 Annual Report of the Bromley Safeguarding Adults Board (BSAB).

Officers explained that the role of the Board was to safeguard vulnerable adults. They highlighted the joint working between the Board, Health Service and the Police.

RESOLVED that the report is noted.

Councillor Auld provided feedback on the recent visit to SLAM.  Unfortunately only 3 of the 9 members who had asked to attend did so.  He said the managers of SLAM had made themselves available and put together a very interesting programme.  He encouraged others to go.

It was agreed that the clerk would remind members of the 2 forthcoming visits.

In addition there was still an ongoing offer for Members to accompany officers on food safety visits and the clerk was arranging a visit to a drug treatment centre.

A full list would be brought back to the next meeting so that future visits could be agreed.

The Committee considered its Work Programme for 2011/12.

Some changes were made to the programme:

A verbal update on the Noise Service and an update on the Mentoring Scheme would be would be added to the January meeting.

RESOLVED that the Work Programme, including the above additions, for the Public Protection and Safety PDS Committee be approved.