Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Mr Terry Belcher and from Ms Joanna Davidson from Victim Support.

Cllr David Cartwright declared an interest as a member of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Tuesday 27^th October 2015.

No questions had been received from Councillors or from members of the public.  

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of Public Protection and Safety PDS Committee held on 15^th September 2015.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 15^th September 2015 be agreed.

Report CSD15124

Mr Rob Vale (Head of Trading Standards and Community Safety) gave a brief update on Community Payback. The Committee were informed that contact had been made with Ms Nicola Walters (the Pan London Operations Manager for Community Payback) and that the LBB contact for Community Payback would be Lisa Whitley. Both would be invited to the next meeting of the Safer Bromley Partnership Strategic Group that was scheduled for December 3^rd 2015. The Committee heard that Community Payback activities had already been undertaken in the borough in recent months, and that Community Payback work had been undertaken in St Mary’s Cray and at Anerley Town Hall. It was hoped that LBB would be able to utilise the programme to assist with public right of way maintenance in the near future.

The Chairman asked how many people had been involved with Community Payback in Bromley to date. Mr Vale was not aware of that information at the meeting, but advised that he would find out. Cllr Michael Tickner asked who Community Payback were managed by, and Mr Vale answered that the programme was managed by the Community Rehabilitation Company. 

The Committee noted that a CCTV update was going to be presented to the Committee later in the meeting, and that the Committee’s concerns concerning the commissioning and tendering for contracts had been fed back to the E&R PDS Committee for action. It was noted that all the matters referred to on the report had been actioned or were in the process of being actioned.

RESOLVED that the Matters Arising report be noted.

The Police Update was provided by the Deputy Borough Commander (DBC), Superintendent Trevor Lawry. 

The Committee heard that MOPAC  (Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) 7 offences continued to decrease against the financial year baseline of 2011/12. The current performance of Bromley Police was -16.5 %-- this was a further 0.3% fall from the previous update.

This could be broken down as follows:

Burglary   -26.9%

Criminal Damage   -10.2%

Robbery   -48.8%

TFMV    -26.4%

TOMV    4.8%

Theft Person   -8.2%

Violence W/I    7.0%

(TFMV=theft from motor vehicles; TOMV = theft of motor vehicles; W/I = with injury). 

The Committee heard that while overall this was a positive picture—challenges remained. There was currently a rise in TOMV and criminal damage offences. It was noted that a seasonal spike was normally seen at this time of year in these offences, but the police were working hard to target those areas. There had been a rise in the theft of mopeds that had contributed to the increase in the TOMV figures. There had also been a rise in the number of vans being stolen, often with keys left in them by workmen. It was felt that in many cases, the primary motivation for these thefts was not the van itself, but the tools that the van contained. Many people were leaving their vehicles unlocked, and car thieves were now skilled in dealing with digital technology that had previously worked effectively as a deterrent against theft.

Cllr Samaris Huntington Thresher asked if TOMN was more prevalent in certain areas. It was noted that a hotspot for the theft of mopeds was Penge. The theft of high end vehicles tended to be related to burglaries. 

Violence with injury offences although higher than what the police would have hoped for, was beginning to fall against a high of 10.8% in May 2015. Bromley was significantly lower than the rest of the metropolitan police area, which  had seen over a 17% increase.

Superintendent Lawry informed Members that the number of sex offences reported was increasing. He commented that this was a nationwide phenomenon. He felt that a possible explanation was that the public were more confident in reporting sexual offences, and that this had resulted in increased figures.

Cllr Richard Williams asked about hate crimes against the lesbian and gay community, and queried if the Police employed a designated LGBT officer.  Superintendent Lawry clarified that a LGBT officer had been designated. Cllr Williams stated that he would like to have a meeting with the officer concerned. 

The Committee were briefed with an update concerning police response times. Immediate grade calls were achieving 90.9% in 15 minutes. The average time to get to an urgent request for service was 8 minutes 48 seconds. Standard grade calls were achieving 92.5% in an hour. This included the Halloween period where there was higher demand and the police were pleased with these statistics.

Met Trace

Met Trace would be rolled out to over 440,000 homes over a three year period. Houses had been identified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

The Chairman updated the Committee as follows:

On 19 September, the Chairman attended the Crime Summit which was held at the Civic Centre. Among other items, the Crime Summit included a presentation from Bromley Youth Council about their campaign for Behaviour and Safety on Public Transport. She then attended a Safer Neighbourhood Board meeting which discussed the future of PCSOs, among other issues.

The Chairman held an agenda planning meeting on 12 October to discuss the agenda for the PP&S PDS on 3^rd November, specifically the item on drug abuse. This meeting was attended by Dr Nada Lemic, the Director of Public Health in Bromley.

On 23 October, the Chairman attended an extended COE / Cabinet meeting at which proposals for the 2016/17 Council Budget were discussed. It is worth pointing out that the cross-cutting Public Protection & Safety department had already seen very substantial funding reductions and was now operating at the minimum statutory level. It was anticipated that further cuts to the department’s budget would be minimal, if any.

The Chairman observed a supervised test purchase exercise on 31 October where two 16-year-old volunteers were sent into various shops in West Wickham, Hayes and Elmers End to “buy” fireworks, an age-related item which cannot be legally purchased by under-18s. Out of five shop visits observed by the Chairman, two of them sold the fireworks to the volunteers without asking for proof of their ID to ascertain their ages. This exercise highlighted the need for continued education and training for shop staff to ensure that they did not sell age-related goods to those too young to buy them.

RESOLVED that the Chairman’s update be noted.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Safer Bromley Partnership Strategic Group were noted.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on 27^th October 2015.

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

Report FSD 15064

The Committee noted the latest Budget Monitoring report for 2015/16, and that the report showed a projected underspend of £20k.

There were no questions on the report.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder endorse the latest budget projection for the Public Protection and Safety Portfolio.

Report ES15082

The report on Drug Misuse in Bromley was presented to the Committee by Dr Nada Lemic, Director of Public Health. The report was drafted to provide members with information on drug misuse in Bromley, and the Committee were asked to note the report, and to consider and comment on the issues that it raised.

Dr Lemic summarised the main points of the report, and the Deputy Borough Commander stated that he had nothing to add. It was noted that most people in Bromley started to take illicit drugs in their early twenties, and that as well as addictions to these substances, individuals also experience addictions to prescription only medicines and over the counter medicines. The Committee heard that Bromley had a lower rate of drug use than England and London in all categories. The main substances that individuals were addicted to were opiates and alcohol. The population receiving treatment for substance misuse were predominantly white males in the 40 to 49 age group. Mortality rates related to drug abuse and drug poisoning had been increasing since 1993, with heroin and morphine as the most commonly implicated drugs. 

The Committee heard that drug abuse in Bromley was also the cause of blood borne infections, mental health issues and increased hospital admissions. It was also noted by the Committee that drug misuse had various socioeconomic impacts; these included healthcare costs, crime, homelessness and family breakup. It was also the case that productivity was lost, and unemployment increased in proportion to the severity and misuse of drugs and alcohol.

The Committee were briefed concerning the various intervention programmes provided by Bromley Drug and Alcohol Service. Dr Lemic informed Members that the way in which effective treatment was gauged was by calculating the number of individuals that had been in treatment for three months or more. It was the case that in 2014-2015, 462 individuals effectively engaged in treatment in Bromley-- which equated to 89% of the treatment population. The main measure of successful treatment was the proportion of people that successfully completed treatment and did not return for six months. Bromley had a higher proportion of successful completers than the national value in all categories of substance misuse. 

The Chairman drew attention to section 6.1 of the report that was concerned with the main aims of drug treatment, and asked why the main aim of the treatment was not to get people to quit drugs. She also referred the Committee to the bar charts relating to section 6.4 of the report that dealt with treatment outcomes for adults. The bar charts provided data concerning what was regarded as “Successful Treatment Completion” based around the criteria that adults did not refer back for treatment with six months. The Chairman was interested to know what happened to these individuals in the longer term. The Chairman also pointed out that there was no mention of budgets in the report.

Dr Lemic responded that treatment was concerned with three issues prior to the possibility of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Report ES 15076

This report had been written to advise Members of the activity undertaken by the Public Protection Division during the period commencing 1^st April 2015, to 30th September 2015, relating to the annual Portfolio Plan and enforcement under delegated powers.

The Committee referred to Appendix A of the report, and the section dealing with Improvement Notices that had been served under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. It was noted that this figure was high at 14. The Committee heard that this was as a result of targeted action following complaints.

The Committee wondered why the number of Early Intervention Warning Notices served under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 was zero. It was explained to the Committee that this was the result of previous proactive and successful work against ASB where 18 notices had been served. It was still the case that 16 Acceptable Behaviour Commitments had been served under the same statutory powers.

Cllr Tickner asked what the public should do if there were problems with loud noise, and the answer to this was that they should still call the noise team. This was still being funded by MOPAC. It was the case that at least two complaints from the public had to be received. It was noted that the number for the noise team would be circulated. 

The Chairman referred to Outcome 1 of the Portfolio Plan, which was concerned with keeping Bromley Safe. The Committee noted that Operation Crystal was continuing to meet its objectives, and that the Bromley Mentoring Initiative was running well. It was also noted that the targeting of gang nominals had now been added to the remit of Operation Crystal. The Chairman was pleased to note that with respect to this Outcome, all of the RAG statuses were Green.

The Chairman referred the Committee to Outcome 3 which was concerned with supporting and regulating business. The Chairman was concerned that the inspection of high risk food businesses had fallen and that the RAG status was Amber. She was eager to avoid possible outbreaks of food poisoning. It was noted that this was something that Dr Paul Lehane (Head of Food Safety) was working to address. Mr Robert Vale (Head of Trading Standards and Community Safety) agreed with the importance of prevention, and assured the Committee that the Food Safety Team were on target for Q4. Cllr Samaris Huntington Thresher asked if LBB would be liable if food premises were not properly informing customers about food allergens. Mr Nigel Davies (Executive Director of Environmental and Community Services) reminded the Committee that a full report on Food Safety would be presented to the Committee in March 2016. 

Cllr Julian Benington drew attention to section 2.1 of Outcome 2 that was concerned with protecting customers. Mr Vale explained that LBB had being undertaking much work with local banks to make them more aware of rogue traders that were targeting the elderly or vulnerable. It was now the case that if a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Report ES15077

This report had been written by Mr Jim McGowan (Head of Environmental Protection) and Mr McGowan attended to brief the Committee on the report, and to answer any questions.

Mr McGowan notified the Committee that the revised completion date for the CCTV refurbishment was now January 2016. He then explained to the Committee the reasons for this delay. The Committee heard that a formal appeal had been raised against the letting of the contract originally and that this had to be dealt with by LBB’s legal team before matters could be progressed. The appeal was lost, and the refurbishment contract was awarded to Tyco. Subsequent to this, the Government had drafted measures to change the law concerning certain parking enforcement functions, and this meant that a new proposal of works had to be presented to the Secretary of State which caused additional delay. The current position is that Tyco have been instructed to proceed with works subject to approval, in order to reduce the risk of control room failure.

Mr McGowan explained to the Committee that an eight week factory build of equipment was required prior to installation in January 2016. Following this, there would be a period of testing to ensure that LBB were satisfied that everything was working properly. The monitoring contract had been awarded

to OCS, and the maintenance contract had been awarded to Eurovia. The KPI’s concerning monitoring had been reported and were on target.

Mr McGowan proceeded to discuss the matter of charging for CCTV evidential packages. Currently a charge of £50.00 was made for private third party requests, and no charges were made to the Police. It was noted that other boroughs charged the same as this, but that some boroughs only charged £10.00. The Committee discussed the matter of charging for evidential packages.

Cllr Julian Benington enquired how long it took to provide an evidential package, and stated that the charge should reflect costs. Mr McGowan responded that the time varied. Sometimes it just took two or three minutes, but if the CCTV operators were dealing with a vague police query, then the work could take two hours. An average timescale was in the region of fifteen minutes. Cllr Tickner felt that a £10.00 charge should be made in all cases, and that if an evidential package was subsequently provided, then a £50.00 charge should be levied. He asked for an explanation of the term, “privacy zone software”. He wondered if it was prudent to have a CCTV operator employed on a full time basis from 9.00am to 5.00pm, and felt that it may be more beneficial to have an operator working full time from midnight into the early hours of the morning.  Mr McGowan explained that the privacy software enabled certain zones that the cameras covered to be blocked out to ensure privacy. 

Cllr Samaris Huntington Thresher enquired if other local authorities charged the Police for evidential packages. It was noted that the boroughs that the Committee were aware of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Report CSD 15115

The Committee noted the Work Programme for the Public Protection and Safety, Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee.

The Committee also noted the Contracts Register. The Mortuary Contract was tabled separately as it was received subsequent to agenda publication.  

The next meeting is scheduled for January 20^th 2016.

The date of the next meeting was confirmed as 20^th January 2016.