Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Gordon Norrie, and also from Andrew Spears from Bromley Youth Service.

Councillor Roxhannah Fawthrop declared a personal interest with regard to CCTV as she had recently been involved in a motor vehicle accident where CCTV footage was being used as part of the investigation.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing four working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure that questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on 15^th January 2014.

One oral question was received from Mr Bob Mills. The question and response are appended to these minutes.

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of Public Protection and Safety PDS Committee held on 5^th November 2013.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 5^th November 2013 be agreed.

Report CSD14019

Members considered the matters arising report.

Concerning Minute 206, Bethlem Royal Hospital Update, the Chairman advised that the report on the February 2012 incident had been released, and had been seen by some members of the Committee. The Chairman advised that bi monthly meetings were taking place with SLaM, and that relations were improving. The Chairman therefore suggested that it may be appropriate to move on, and that the proposed meeting with SLaM be scrapped.

Councillor Douglas Auld commented that it was two years since this incident had occurred, and that there were still no satisfactory answers. Councillor Auld felt that this was not good enough, and that answers were required from questions that had been raised.

The Portfolio Holder stated that the report was in circulation, and that it was damning against SLaM. The report highlighted inefficiencies, with recommended actions. SLaM were of the opinion that these actions were no longer required as the ward in question was now closed. The Portfolio Holder continued with the suggestion that SLaM be invited to one of the meetings of the Public Protection and Safety PDS Committee.

Councillor Auld commented that he was looking for a way ahead, and said that the attitude of the management at SlaM was negative. The emphasis should now be focused on how everyone involved could learn from past errors, and move forward for the benefit of all concerned.

The Portfolio Holder felt that matters were now moving on in a more positive direction, and that relations with SLaM had greatly improved; this had in part been facilitated by the appointment of a new Director. Further, it was likely that a seat would be offered to someone from the Public Protection and Safety Committee to sit on the SLaM Board of Governors. This was likely to be agreed by February.

The Portfolio Holder highlighted a difference in opinion as to how the security issues were being looked at by SLaM and by the Public Protection & Safety Committee. It was the opinion of the Committee, and of many members of the public, that security needed improving at Bethlem. The view of SLaM was that the facility was a hospital and not a prison, and that serious security issues would be a matter for the Police.

Councillor Jane Beckley commented that it was in SLaM’s interests to be open about these matters to allay public concerns.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett expressed concern that this was a matter of public confidence, and questioned why the report could not be published. He stated that the establishment was a forensic unit that accommodated some very serious offenders. Councillor Bennett stated that he would like to see the new Chief Executive attend a Public Protection and Safety PDS Committee meeting, and also attend a meeting of the West Wickham Resident’s Association.

It was agreed that SLaM would be invited to the next meeting of the Public Protection & Safety PDS Committee in July 2014, where these issues could be discussed further. 

It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

The Chairman highlighted the Best Bar None Awards. This was taking place on Friday 28^th February at 1.00pm.  The Chairman stated that all were very welcome but should advise proposed attendance in advance for catering purposes. The person dealing with the catering was Mr Steve Philips.

The Chairman further highlighted that planning was underway for the Safer Bromley Awards. This would be held on Thursday 27^th March 2014.  This event was going to be advertised on the Council Website in an attempt to widen the reach for entries.

The Chairman had previously reported that Boris Johnson would be coming to Bromley to see Community Safety in action. He was previously due to come before Christmas but cancelled due to the visit being planned on the same day as George Osborne’s Autumn Statement.

The Chairman advised that the new date for Boris Johnson coming to visit Bromley was Tuesday 11^th February 2014.

The Deputy Borough Commander Jo Oakley provided an update for the Committee.

There had been a change to the Senior Management Team. A new Chief Inspector had been appointed, Chief Inspector Roy Smith. Chief Inspector Katrina Smith had now retired. The new Chief Inspector would be responsible for the Emergency Response Teams.

Generally speaking, crime levels were going down. Overall crime levels had decreased year on year by eight hundred crimes against MOPAC 7 crime reduction targets. It was acknowledged that there had been some articles in the press concerning Police data integrity.

Year on year, vehicle crime was down by two hundred and fifty. The number of low level assaults had fallen, but the number of serious assaults had increased. It was explained that this increase was resultant from a change in the classification process. Because of these changes, even if a person got a scratch in a domestic violence incident, that would be classed as a serious assault.

There were certain areas in the Borough that were recognised hotspots for motorists and cyclists being either killed or seriously injured; these areas were being targeted and monitored by the Police.

There were 15 current Operations ongoing targeting different types of crime, including anti-social behaviour, serious acquisitive crimes, drugs and gangs.

Following the publication of the findings of the Duggan inquest, there had been an increased Police presence in the Borough, but fortunately there did not appear to be an increase in community tension in Bromley. 

Councillor Fookes asked if there had been any further problems with the implementation of the New Policing Model and also if there had been any further updates on the previous shooting that had taken place in Penge. The Deputy Borough Commander responded that the NPM implementation in Bromley was ongoing and evolving, but that generally speaking it was going well. There were ongoing local and central meetings to monitor the progress of the NPM in Bromley. There had been no further updates on the Penge shooting, and this matter was being dealt with centrally.

Councillor Auld asked what time officers came on duty in the Petts Wood area, and how many vehicles were involved in moving officers around when they first came on duty. The Deputy Borough Commander answered by stating that officers came on duty at 7.00am, and that there was a mini bus and two cars involved in the transportation process.

Councillor Auld was of the opinion that too much time was being lost in the transportation of officers between Petts Wood and St Mary’s Cray, and this he estimated to be as much as 25% of Police time. Councillor Auld commented on the data integrity of police reporting statistics. The Deputy Borough Commander responded that this matter was being assessed centrally. 

Abdulla Zaman from Bromley Youth Council asked if Diversity was being practiced in connection with recruitment to the Police force. The Deputy Borough Commander responded that an active Diversity policy was in place, although Diversity targets had not been reached.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to the Portfolio Holder must be received in writing four working days before the date of the meeting. Therefore please ensure that questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on 15^th January 2014.

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

The report provided an update on the latest budget monitoring position for 2013/14 for the Public Protection and Safety Portfolio based on expenditure and activity levels up to 30th November 2013. This showed a projected underspend of £19K.

The report outlined the level of expenditure and progress with the implementation of the selected project within the Member Priority Initiatives and provided details of the latest expenditure within the Community Safety Budget.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the Portfolio Holder endorse the latest budget projection for the Public Protection and Safety Portfolio

(2) the Portfolio Holder note the progress of the implementation of the Targeted Neighbourhood Activity Project

Report: ES14011

The Committee was advised that the Council’s CCTV system was over ten years old and was now in danger of failing. It was not cost effective to replace in part, and would need to be replaced in full. There was an existing problem in trying to get new parts.

If this was not dealt with as a priority, the consequences of system failure would be severe. There would be a risk to Community Safety and crime resolution, and there would also be a massive loss in revenue to the Council in terms of parking enforcement; this was estimated to be in the region of £1.2M.

The total estimated cost of refurbishment was £340,000. 

Councillor Fookes asked if there was any possibility of a joint venture with partners such as INTU, other private sector partners, and the Police.

Jim McGowan responded that these possibilities had been examined, but were not cost effective, and this was something that the Police were not interested in.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP raised the issue of the continued lack of cooperation from TFL with sharing their CCTV capability. Councillor Bennett commented that it was a nonsense that two public bodies should not be cooperating on such important matters, and that the issue should be raised with Boris Johnson on his visit. 

Doctor Robert Hadley expressed concern over the lack of CCTV coverage in the Locksbottom and Tugmutton Common areas, and enquired what the policy was in terms of CCTV coverage in parks.

The Portfolio Holder answered that before CCTV could be put in anywhere there had to be a case; it could for example be a recognised crime problem. There appeared to be a strong case for CCTV in Locksbottom, and it was likely that CCTV there would go ahead at some point; there did not appear to be a strong enough case for CCTV to be installed in the Tugmutton Common area. As far as parks were concerned, there would be difficulties, as some parents would be concerned about images of their children on CCTV. There would likely need to be a public consultation in such circumstances.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the Portfolio Holder be recommended to endorse the bid for capital expenditure for a new CCTV system as outlined in the report.

A presentation on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service was given by Mr Toks Adesuyan, the Legal & Stakeholder Manager (London South & Youth Team) based in Croydon.

It was explained that the Youth Court Team in London was restructured in 2013, and consisted of a Magistrates Court Division, and a Crown Court Division. Mr Adesuyan worked for the Magistrates Court Division.

The head of the CPS was the Director for Public Prosecutions, and the Attorney General was the person responsible to Parliament. The CPS was independent of the Police and Government.

There was a guidance book called “The Code” issued by the DPP that the CPS had to be guided by and adhere to. The Code sets out a two stage test to be applied when considering prosecutions. These were the Full Code Test and the Threshold Test. 

The Full Code Test consisted of two stages:

·  The Evidential Stage

·  The Public Interest

The former refers quite simply to having enough evidence to bring a prosecution, whilst the latter asks if bringing a prosecution would be in the interests of the general public. The latter takes into consideration the seriousness of the offence; culpability of the offender; the circumstances of the case; harm done, and other issues like age. Mr Adesuyan explained that the CPS worked with groups such as the Courts, Witnesses, DV Services and Youth Offending Teams. The primary aim of the CPS was to deliver justice for the public and the CPS worked to twelve core quality standards. Mr Adesuyan outlined that two priority areas for the CPS were racial hate crime and domestic violence. All racial hate crimes had to be referred by the Police to the CPS.

Mr Adesuyan explained that a Domestic Strategy Group had been set up to improve performance in this area, and that prosecutors involved in domestic violence cases benefited from specialist training. The CPS would sometimes use special measures like screens or restraining orders to progress cases where required.

Conviction rates for prosecuted DV Cases in Bromley recently were:

·  October 2013  55.2%

·  November 2013  79.4%

·  December 2013  78.6%

The average conviction rate for London in the same period ranged between 64.8% and 67.8%.

In terms of general prosecutions for all crimes, the conviction rates for Bromley during the last quarter of 2013 ranged between 74% and 84.2%; this compared with an average for London of 82%. 

Mr Adesuyan outlined that the CPS had a Youth Court Team for London, and that whenever possible, they would try and avoid custodial sentences for young people. One of the exceptions to this was knife crime; most sixteen to seventeen year olds involved in knife crime were prosecuted. 

Mr Adesuyan stated that the CPS was now employing “digital working”, and that now evidence and cases were being processed digitally.

Councillor Douglas Auld asked if the CPS had any controls over Police cautions. Mr Adesuyan responded that the answer to this question was no, and that this was a Police matter. However, it was the case  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

A presentation was given by Mr Alf Kennedy on behalf of Bromley Neighbourhood Watch. Mr Kennedy updated the Committee as follows:

Bromley Neighbourhood Watch Association (BNWA) had 37,000 residents linked to the Watch in Bromley. The Watch had a good relationship with the Police and Local Council.

The aim of BNWA was to ensure that no one felt afraid, vulnerable or isolated. BNWA wanted to create a community that was of benefit to all, and research showed that communities where NW operated, experienced less crime.

The organisation was run by the Police until 1998, after which it became a registered charity.

BNWA had a website that was designed by students at Bromley College and it is used to :

·  Manage New Applications

·  Manage the database and sticker distribution

·  Point Members to Borough Commanders

·  Publish a Newsletter and Safer Bromley News

·  Publish Trading Standards Advice and warnings and generic advice

·  Promote Linked Sites

Bromley Council and the Police were represented on the BNWA Executive. BNWA had a Coordinator Guide, which had been shared with a number of Boroughs; BNWA also had its own unique street signs and window stickers. BNWA held a well-attended AGM and appeared at a number of events across the Borough.

Every London Borough Police Website should now include a reference to the local NW contact, and there was a similar pointer on Bromley Council’s Website.

Work was currently underway to provide a system for all 32 Borough Police Forces to use to communicate with the public and the ten thousand Neighbourhood Watches across London. A presentation of the proposed system was expected in the next few weeks.

The “Eyes over London” poster that was used by London Neighbourhood Watch on the London Underground a few years ago, was going to reappear in a Paddington Bear Movie.

Finally, Mr Kennedy concluded his presentation by informing Members that the Home Office was piloting a scheme called “Neighbourhood Return” which aimed to improve life for people with dementia and for their carers. This would be done by helping them to prepare for, and cope with a common life changing event, and for situations where someone wandered off and became lost. 

Report: ES14010

The Portfolio Holder provided an update on the current position in relation to the introduction of the Safer Neighbourhood Board into Bromley as requested by MOPAC.

The main points of the update were:

·  The £1M Safer Neighbourhood Board Fund had been provided to fund the project nationwide, as a way of encouraging community engagement; approximately £5200.00 per borough would be ring fenced to cover administration costs

·  The BCEF would be dismantled, and incorporated into the SNB

·  The Safer Bromley Partnership would become smaller, meet less frequently, but become more strategic

·  Panel members of the Board would be 20-25 in number, and would be encouraged to change every three years. It was proposed to stagger membership as this would provide greater flexibility

·  It was proposed that the SNB would meet four times a year—three formal meetings and one Crime Summit 

·  There was going to be a meeting on the 30^th January 2014 to discuss membership and composition of the Board; it was likely that Councillor Tim Stevens JP would be appointed as the Chairman of the SNB, and that the Borough Commander be appointed Chairman of the Safer Bromley Partnership.  It was likely that Mr Terry Belcher would be appointed as Vice Chairman of the SNB.

·  A primary role of the SNB would be to hold the Police and the SBP to account. Another important role would be to work closely with Ward Panels and residents, and to generally encourage community engagement.

Councillor Auld asked if Bromley would be in competition with other Boroughs for funding. The Portfolio Holder responded that there was an element of this, as other Boroughs had a greater crime problem than Bromley. It was anticipated that Bromley would be allocated between £15k and £20K.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the Committee noted the information contained in the report, and on the MOPAC guidance;

(2) the Committee supported the proposals for the Chairmanship of the Safer Neighbourhood Board in Bromley, and for the Partnership Strategic Group. 

Report: ES14006

This report was presented by Mr Peter Sibley, ASB Co-ordinator for Bromley.

The report was an update on the Tackling Gangs report that was presented to the Safer Bromley Partnership in September 2012.

A prominent feature of the report was the formation of a Gangs Panel to provide a coordinated and effective response to gang related activity. The Gangs Panel had been set up in February 2013 and consisted of:

·  The Police Gangs Unit

·  The ASBU

·  The Youth Offending Team

·  The Probabtion Service

·  The Police Schools Unit

·  The LBB Housing Team

·  The Targeted Youth Service

·  The Tacking Troubled Families Team

The Education Behaviour Service and the Children’s and Adult’s Mental Health Panel were also due to join the Panel in due course.

Twelve Matrix gang members had been identified, with sixty to eighty fluctuating. Most offences were committed outside of the Borough. Mr Sibley stated that decanting was a problem. The twelve “matrix” gang members were all linked to one gang, and were united by drugs and money. No female gang members had been identified, and the oldest gang member was aged forty.

The Committee expressed their satisfaction with the progress that had been achieved.

RESOLVED that:

(1)  the success and progress made on the implementation of the recommendations  of the action plan outlined in the  “Tackling Gangs Report” presented to the SBP in September 2012 be noted.

Report: CSD14017

The Annual Update Report on the Bromley Youth Offending Team Partnership is an annual report presented to the Care Services and Public Protection and Safety Portfolio Holders. The purpose of the report was to provide an update on the performance of the Bromley Youth Offending Team Partnership during 2012/13, and also to provide an update on related operational and strategic developments.

The report came to the Public Protection and Safety PDS Committee in the form of an information briefing, and Mr Paul King (Head of Bromley Youth Support Programme) was available to answer any questions that may have arisen.

Congratulations were offered from Councillor Douglas Auld relating to the progress made,  especially in view of cutbacks and efficiency savings.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the contents of the information briefing were noted.

Report: CSD14017

Claire Lynn (Strategic Commissioner for Mental Health and Substance Misuse) informed the Committee that KPI’s were outlined in the Public Health Outlook Framework, and that these KPI’s were for drug treatment only. It was acknowledged that admission to hospital in Bromley for alcohol misuse was more than expected. There were also problems with older people taking prescribed and over the counter medications. It was highlighted that screening questions would apply to any age, and that this would include older people going to Accident and Emergency after falling.

Attention was drawn to section 2.3.5 of the report by the Committee which outlined Harm Reduction and Healthcare Indicators, and to the fact that Bromley was still underperforming in this area.  The Commissioner responded that this was not in fact a helpful indicator. It had to be noted that Bromley was still performing above London and National performance targets. It had to be noted that the baseline was all people accessing treatment, whereas only those who had clinical indicators were offered a vaccination or test. The Service was providing vaccinations at point of assessment if required, and performance in this area was improving.   

Councillor Auld drew attention to the last paragraph of page 80 (section 2.3.2) which referred to opiate users receiving treatment for 6 years, and that this seemed a long time. The Commissioner answered that in some Boroughs there were people receiving treatment for twenty years. It was explained that in these cases, work was being done to reduce the subject’s prescription and that many found it hard to take the final step. Work was also being undertaken to improve psychological support.

It was noted that there had been an increase in Bromley of cases of young people being admitted to hospital with alcohol related problems.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the contents of the report be noted.    

Report: FSD14004

The primary aim of this report was to examine cost pressures and proposed savings for the next financial year, and after doing so, to make any relevant comments back to the Executive.

The Chairman drew attention to Section 3.8 of the report which outlined proposed cost savings to be considered by the Executive.

These were:

·  Community Safety and Out of Hours Noise Service    £90,000

·  Reduction of the Portfolio Holder Grants Budget  £60,000

·  Efficiency Savings and Cash Limiting of Running Expenses    £25,000 

So the total savings to be considered by the Executive would be £175,000.

These proposed savings were accepted by the Committee.

Councillor Peter Fookes asked when the new MOPAC bid was formulated, and if funding was available for the Summer Activities Project and the Youth Council.

These questions were taken up by the Portfolio Holder, Councillor Tim Stevens, JP.

The Portfolio Holder stated that:

·  The Phoenix Children’s Resource Centre was not closing 

·  The Youth Centre was not closing

·  The Duke of Edinburgh Award was continuing.

The Summer Activity Scheme was going ahead as planned.

The MOPAC bids were safe for three years, and would be in place until 2016. This would be the case as long as Bromley hit prescribed targets, and used the money wisely. 

RESOLVED that:

(1) the update on the financial forecast for 2014/15 to 2017/18 be noted;

(2) the draft savings options proposed by the Executive be endorsed;  

(3) the initial draft budget for 2014/15 be endorsed as the basis for setting the final 2014/15 Budget.  

Report: CSD14018

The details of the Work Programme as outlined in the report were noted.

It was further noted that the Committee intended to incorporate two additional items into the Work Programme as a result of this evening’s meeting.

These were:

·  A visit by representatives from SLaM for July 2014

·  A visit to the Committee by representatives from the local ambulance service

The Chairman indicated that there were some changes to be applied to the Work Programme that had evolved after the current Work Programme (on the agenda) had been drafted.

These were:

1.  The Draft Portfolio Plan 2014/15 would be removed from the March 2014 Work Programme, but remain for July 2014

2.  An Annual Update on Youth Services Report would be listed for March 2014

3.  A Mentoring End of Year Report would be listed for July 2014

4.  A Bromley Youth Council End of Year Report would be listed for July 2014

RESOLVED that:

(1) the Work Programme be agreed subject to the inclusion of the new items that were highlighted in the meeting;

(2) the Public Protection and Safety Portfolio Contracts be noted.

It was noted that Members had recently expressed interest in visiting Youth Centre Hubs, the Youth Offending Team, and a revisit to the Local Ambulance Service.

It was further noted that interest had been shown in a visit to the Metropolitan Police Command and Control Centre in Lambeth. The contact to arrange this visit had been located, and it was likely that this visit would be arranged for the near future.

Interest was also shown in a visit to the Police Crime Museum. This would be a very interesting visit, but normally this venue is used as a Police Training Centre. Mr Wood from Democratic Services was waiting for a response from the Museum’s curators to a request for the Committee to visit. The Committee would be updated in due course. 

Questions to the Chairman of the Public Protection and Safety PDS Committee for Oral Reply:

The following questions were raised:

From Bob Mills, Chairman, Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom Safer Neighbourhood Panel.

These questions were referred to the Deputy Borough Commander Jo Oakey to respond as they were questions more appropriate to a Police response.

Question 1:

Noting that the designated Policeman and PCSO for Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom Ward are required to start and finish their shift at St. Mary Cray Police Station before travelling to their Ward, please can the Chairman find out how many hours in a week are lost by not starting in the Police Office in Green Street Green rather than starting and finishing at St. Mary Cray Police Station?

Reply:

The Local Policing Model was introduced in September and the whole of London is/has moved towards neighbourhoods as opposed to Wards. 

Ordinarily it is preferable for there to be one base per neighbourhood, but this has not been possible at this time for Bromley. The neighbourhoods are:

North West: Three bases currently - Copperfield House, Albermarle House, and Croydon Rd.

South West: Four bases currently - Walpole Rd, Main Rd Biggin Hill, Coney Hall Parade, West Wickham. 

North East: One base - Bromley Police Station

South East: One Base - The Crays. 

It is necessary for officers to parade at the main base so that they can be properly briefed and supervised. In the majority of cases they are dropped at their designated patrol area and there is a minibus which is used for this purpose. All of the neighbourhoods would ordinarily parade at one site but the Bromley Estate is not able to do this as some bases can only hold one or two teams.  

Officers parade and are briefed by a supervising officer.  This would normally mean that they are deployed after parade. Even if they have to travel to get to their patrol area, this is advantageous to the broader Bromley community as they will always be travelling through the Borough.

They are properly tasked and briefed so that a corporate message is delivered to the staff on that neighbourhood, rather than self-briefing which often occurred previously. 

Chief Inspector Carron Schusler has/is conducting a time study, but this is for internal purposes.

The MPS is going through big changes and the MPS Estate will reduce. Further cost savings will be made (although it is not known what these will be), which is preferable to come from buildings rather than people.

Question 2

(2) Does this apply to other Ward teams, and if so, will the Chairman consider scrutinising the operational effectiveness of this arrangement?

Reply:

The LPM is working well in Bromley, but the Estate still poses a problem for full implementation of patrol bases.

We regularly review the LPM to identify what is working and where improvements could be made. This is submitted centrally.

Under the LPM we have seen an increase in Police officers in Bromley.

Neighbourhood officers now have a broader spectrum of what they are required to do.

As with all officers, their productivity is subject to scrutiny. 

There was also a question about where they normally took refreshments. They can take refreshments on their patrol area or at their base. They may have a 45 minute refreshment period. 

The Police are held to account against the MOPAC 7 targets, which are over the course of the next 3 years.

Currently we are approximately 800 total notifiable offences down on our previous very good performance as a borough.