Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 1 - Bromley Civic Centre. View directions

Contact: Steve Wood  020 8313 4316

Items
No. Item

STANDARD ITEMS

37.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Cllr Julian Benington.

 

Apologies were received from Joanna Davidson from Victim Support, and Kate Frail attended as substitute.

38.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minutes:

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

39.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCILLORS AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING

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 14th January 2016.

 

Minutes:

No questions were received.

40.

MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTION AND SAFETY PDS COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 3rd NOVEMBER 2015 pdf icon PDF 252 KB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on the 3rd November 2015.

 

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the 3rd November 2015 be agreed as a correct record.  

41.

MATTERS ARISING pdf icon PDF 69 KB

Minutes:

Report CSD16015

 

Members considered matters arising from previous meetings.

 

The Committee noted that an update on the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 would be brought to Members at the March meeting.

 

The Chairman updated the Committee on numbers involved with Community Payback to date. The Community Rehabilitation Company had reported that a “Payback” group ran one day per week and allocated 8 places per team. On average, they expected 32 service users on a 4 week month and 40 on a five week month.

 

The Head of Environmental Protection updated the Committee with details of arrangements made by other boroughs concerning charges levied for CCTV evidential packages.

 

It was noted that most boroughs levied a £10.00 basic fee under the Data Protection Act. There were a few boroughs that charged a supplementary fee for further information. LBB were charging a supplementary fee of £50.00 in addition to the initial £10.00 fee. There was a borough that charged £100.00. for supplementary evidential packages. The opinion was that the charges were legal, but this would be confirmed by obtaining formal legal advice.

 

Mr McGowan updated the Committee concerning CCTV problems that had arisen over the previous week. It was clarified that an engineer had accidentally blown a CCTV server. The part was immediately returned to the manufacturer for urgent repair. The part was swiftly repaired and re-fitted, with the intention that it be back up and running for the Friday evening. Cllr Cartwright asked what the cost for this was. No cost fell to LBB, the engineering company responsible for the error would be covering any costs.

 

Cllr Cartwright requested that the information concerning food allergens be re-sent.

 

 

RESOLVED that the Matters Arising report be noted. 

42.

CHAIRMAN'S UPDATE

Minutes:

The Chairman updated the Committee as follows:

 

The Chairman attended the Bromley Youth Council Executive on Thursday 17th December where the members of Bromley Youth Council gave an update on their Young People and Public Transport project. They will be making a verbal report on the project at the March meeting of the Public Protection & Safety PDS.

 

The Re-Opening Ceremony of Orpington Fire Station will take place on Wednesday 17th February 2016.

 

The Chairman was greatly relieved to hear the news that Metropolitan Police budgets were not being cut back in this year’s Budget as public safety was paramount, especially at present where extra resources were needed in the fight against terrorism.

 

RESOLVED that the Chairman’s update be noted.

43.

POLICE UPDATE

Minutes:

The Police update was provided by the Borough Commander.

 

The Committee were updated on how  MOPAC 7 offences were performing against the financial year baseline of 2011/12.  At the previous meeting it was reported that the overall crime figures had decreased by 16.5%. It was reported at this meeting that the overall crime figures had decreased by 17.2%.

 

The Borough Commander expected that Bromley Police would end the five year period with a final  overall reduction in crime of between 18 and 18.3%. Currently the MET was sitting at 18.4%.

 

It was noted that there had been a substantial decrease in the number of burglaries. There had been an overall reduction to date in these offences of 25.8%. This had resulted in a net decrease in burglaries of 900 per annum.

 

Violence with Injury offences had increased; and the current statistics showed that over the five year period to date, the figures had increased by 8.2%. Robbery offences had decreased, with an overall reduction for the period of 48.2%.

 

Theft from persons had increased by 5.6% over the five year period. Bromley had experienced an increase in the rate of offences involving the theft of motor vehicles. Over the five year period, this had increased by 3.8%. Bromley had the highest rate of TOMV in London in the last twelve months. There was a particular problem with the theft of mopeds. Similarly, during October and November, Bromley had the highest number of vans stolen in London. The Crays was a hotspot for this type of crime. The Borough Commander was of the opinion that vans were being taken to be used in other crimes, and to be taken to “chopping shops”. A “chopping shop” was a location where vehicles were taken to be dismantled for parts. Kate Frail commented that many of the clients that she had dealt with had their vehicles stolen

 

Theft from motor vehicles was decreasing, and decoy operations were being used. This offence had decreased by 31.1% over the five year period.

 

Bromley Police were waiting for new targets that would be made known after the Mayoral Elections in May.

 

The response times to emergency calls were still good. “I” calls were responded to within 15 minutes on 90% of occasions. Calls that required a response within 60 minutes were 91.5% on target. The Police were also measured with respect to how much confidence was placed in them by the public; this had increased by 72%.

 

There had been an incident in the INTU Shopping Centre on Boxing Day. There were initial fears that this was a terrorist related incident, but this was not the case. It was in fact a gang related incident. One offender had been detained at the scene, and had been charged with violent disorder and the possession of an offensive weapon. A second offender was similarly charged after being treated in hospital for a stab wound. A third suspect had been detained and bailed. The investigation was ongoing. The Borough Commander  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

44.

VICTIM SUPPORT PRESENTATION

Minutes:

The Victim Support update was given by Kate Frail—Service Delivery Manager for Bromley and Lewisham.

 

Ms Frail managed a total of 15 volunteers and caseworkers. Currently there was a concerted recruitment drive for volunteers. She informed the Committee that VS dealt with all victims of crime, this ranged from theft to murder. VS had a dedicated Homicide Team. VS did not provide counselling, but did provide emotional support, and all of their staff were trained.

 

Meetings with victims took place in a variety of locations, which included the victim’s home, VS offices, or rooms in other locations in the community. Victim Support was working in partnership with Safer Neighbourhood Boards, ASB Panels, the Gangs Unit and Community Links. VS wanted to set up Victim Impact Training Days, and outreach sites that would provide ease of access for victims. She was hoping to establish outreach sites at Bromley Civic Centre, Bromley Library, Bromley Police Station, Bromley Fire Station, Citizen’s Advice Bureau and Children’s Centres.

 

The Borough Commander offered a room at Bromley Police Station, and it was heard that a room had also been offered by the Borough Fire Commander. Cllr Richard Williams also offered help in locating a room if required.

 

Ms Frail referred to the Safer Bromley Van (SBV) scheme. Victims of burglary who had been visited by the Safer Bromley Van normally avoided a repeat attack. The service was sponsored by the Safer Bromley Partnership, and was run by VS. The SBV Service provided a home survey to give crime prevention advice, with specific focus on windows and doors. 

 

Victim Support representatives went to court with victims if requested, and provided advocacy services. The contact numbers for Ms Frail were:

 

0208 776 7071--Penge

 

0208 698 4583--Lewisham

 

kate.frail@victimsupport.org.uk

 

Members were keen to visit the VS offices and the Chairman asked Ms Frail to provide some suitable dates to the Committee Clerk.

 

 

RESOLVED that the Victim Support update be noted.

 

45.

REVIEW OF SBP STRATEGIC GROUP MINUTES pdf icon PDF 230 KB

Minutes:

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of the Safer Bromley Partnership Strategic Group that had met on 3rd December 2015.

 

Cllr Chris Pierce referred the Committee to Section 59 of the minutes relating to ASB (page 29). The ASB update stated that it had been resolved that action be taken to resolve the problem of fly tipping at Star Lane urgently. No “Actioner” had been designated for this. Cllr Pierce asked for an update.

 

The Executive Director for Environment and Community Services stated that this was a multi council action that was being delivered in conjunction with the Police. It was something that would require monitoring, and that Dan Jones and Environmental Services were leading. An action plan was being pulled together with Police support.

 

Cllr Michael Tickner asked if CCTV could be used to monitor fly tipping. This was unclear and required clarification. Cllr Pierce stated that he was not a supporter of attempting to monitor fly tipping via CCTV. He cited the example of long country lanes where there would be numerous places to fly tip; he expressed the view that in such locations attempting to monitor fly tipping via CCTV would be ineffective. 

 

The Chairman questioned the Chairman’s Update (minute 45) which seemed to suggest that the Police were “allowed” six burglaries a day. The Chief Superintendent reassured her that no burglaries were “allowed” – six burglaries was the number of burglaries that would occur before the target 20% reduction in burglary crime was taken into account.

 

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Safer Bromley Partnership Strategic Group be noted.

HOLDING THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER TO ACCOUNT

46.

QUESTIONS TO THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND COUNCILLORS ATTENDING THE MEETING

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 January 14th 2016.

 

Minutes:

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

 

46a

STRAY AND ABANDONED DOG SERVICE pdf icon PDF 181 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report ES16001

 

The report on the Stray and Abandoned Dog Service was presented by the Head of Environmental Protection.

 

A number of recommendations to the service had been made following a recent Audit report that had been presented to the Audit Sub Committee. This report summarised two of these recommendations relating to kennelling/ re-homing arrangements and the management action being taken. It also made recommendations to Members regarding policies for dealing with dogs confirmed as being a ‘banned breed’ or deemed unsuitable for re-homing and those that were fit for re-homing but had exceeded the statutory timescale for Local Authority care.

 

The Committee heard that the Council had statutory obligations to provide a stray and abandoned dog service to comply with the duties prescribed under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act–Section 68. LBB used SDK Environmental Ltd to collect stray dogs, and the dogs would then be kennelled with Lodge Kennels.

 

It was previously the case that advance block bookings were made with the kennel to ensure vacant kennel space. This practice would now cease, and kennels would be booked on a pay as you go basis as required.

 

The previous Audit report had also recommended that the arrangements for re-homing stray dogs be reviewed and formalised. There were two re-homing scenarios to be considered:

 

a)  A banned breed or a dog unsuitable for re-homing

 

b)  A healthy dog that could be re-homed, but that had exceeded the statutory timescale for local authority care

 

The current practice was that dogs that were either a banned breed or unsuitable for re-homing were humanely destroyed. The cost of euthanasia, transportation and disposal was currently £100 per dog. The report recommended that LBB continue with this practice, and that it be formally adopted as a policy.

 

The Committee considered the current LBB practice concerning healthy dogs (suitable for re-homing) that had exceeded the statutory timescale for Local Authority Care. The current practice was to continue to kennel and re-home these dogs even though LBB had no statutory obligation to do so. The alternate option was to euthanize the dogs at day eight, after the seven day statutory duty had expired. The Committee were pleased to hear that a new arrangement was being negotiated with Battersea Dogs and Cats Home (BDCH) whereby healthy dogs that could be re-homed could be placed with them for a cost of £40.00 per dog. Contingency plans were in place to cover any instances when Battersea Dogs and Cats Home would not be able to take a dog.

 

The Chairman asked why LBB had to kennel a banned breed for 7 days if it was as going to be destroyed anyway. Mr McGowan answered that “banned breeds” could still be owned. If a member of the public produced the appropriate documentation, they could still claim the dog. Cllr Richard Williams asked if LBB had made contact with the Dog’s Trust, as the Trust had a policy not to euthanize healthy dogs. Mr McGowan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46a

46b

CAPITAL PROGRAMME MONITORING - 2ND QUARTER 2015/16 pdf icon PDF 157 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Report FSD1608

 

The Committee considered the Capital Programme Monitoring—2nd Quarter report for 2015/16.

 

The Committee noted that on the 15th July 2015, the Executive had agreed a revised CCTV capital programme valued at £340k. This was reviewed again by the Executive on 2nd December 2015, and the costs remained unchanged.

 

No further capital programme schemes were currently planned for the Public Protection and Safety Portfolio. It was noted that under approved Capital Programme procedures, the CCTV capital programme scheme would be subject to a post completion review within one year of completion, and a report concerning this would be presented to the PDS Committee at that time.

 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder note and endorse the CCTV Capital Programme agreed by the Executive in December 2015.   

 

     

47.

DRAFT 2016/17 BUDGET pdf icon PDF 131 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

FSD 16009

 

The Committee considered the Draft 2016/17 Budget report written by the Head of Finance.

 

The aim of the report was to consider the Portfolio Holder’s Draft 2016/17 Budget which anticipated future cost pressures and initial draft budget saving options.  Members were requested to consider the initial draft budget savings proposed and to identify any further action that might be taken to reduce cost pressures facing the Council over the next four years.

 

The Executive were requesting that each PDS Committee consider the proposed initial draft budget savings and cost pressures for their Portfolio, and the views of each PDS Committee be reported back to the next meeting of the Executive. The Executive would subsequently make recommendations to Council on 2016/17 Council Tax levels.

 

The Committee noted from the report that additional details concerning funding was anticipated, and so caution was to be exercised in considering future projections. The Committee identified that a significant issue that would impact on local government funding from central government was the planned reductions to the DCLG Resource Departmental Expenditure Limits.

 

To compensate for significant funding cuts to local government, the Government had introduced new flexibilities such as increased revenue from business rates, the adult social care council tax precept, and the ongoing ability to raise council tax.

 

The Committee were directed to the table on page 51 of the agenda, dealing with “Variations Compared with the 2015/16 Budget”. The table outlined various sources of cost pressure, as well as projected income and savings. The Committee were concerned that despite concerted efforts to generate income and make savings, there was a projected budget gap in 2019/20 of £26.7m.

 

The Committee noted Appendix 1A which was the draft revenue budget 2016/17 for the Public Protection & Safety Portfolio. It was noted that the 2016/17 draft budget for the Portfolio was £2,016,420.

 

RESOLVED that the initial draft 2016/17 budget be agreed as the basis for setting the 2016/17 budget. 

 

 

 

 

48.

REVIEW OF FOOD SAFETY SERVICE pdf icon PDF 225 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

ES 16008

 

The Review of the Food Safety Service report was written and presented by Dr Paul Lehane, Head of Food Safety, Occupational Safety and Licensing. Karen Ryan (Food Lead Practitioner) also attended to answer questions. Mr Lehane commenced by stating that we took food for granted. He also referred to Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”, where food was classified as one of the basic biological and physiological needs for humans. 

 

The report reviewed the role and performance of the Food Safety Service, and set out the Council’s legal (statutory) roles and responsibilities under both domestic and European law--in the context of the local, national and international regulatory regimes. Mr Lehane stated that it was a frank and honest report. The Food Safety Team were managing and doing a good job but were struggling with a backlog of work due to a lack of resource. The Service was not broken, but it would not take much to break it. 

 

The Committee were informed that the primary objective of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) was to protect public health from risks which may arise from the consumption of food. This included risks caused by the way in which food was produced and supplied. It also had a generic remit to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food. The FSA was the lead body set up in 2000, and LBB were a statutory food authority. The FSA aimed to ensure that:

 

·  Food was safe, and is what it was supposed to be

·  The public had access to an affordable diet

·  The public would be able to make informed choices about what to eat

 

The Committee were concerned at the statistics concerning the number of people in the UK that were hospitalised each year by food poisoning, and that in many cases these incidences resulted in fatalities. It was also the case that much food was mislabelled.

 

The Committee were troubled to hear that evidence suggested that increasing pressures on the food supply system meant that food security and sustainability for the future would be more volatile.

 

Mr Lehane explained to the Committee that the main role of LBB’s Food Safety Team was to enforce food safety law. The food laws that required enforcing were:

 

·  Food Safety Act 1990

·  Food Hygiene & Safety (England) Regulations 2013

·  Official Feed and Food Controls (England) Regulations 2009

·  Plus 50 additional statutes.

 

The Committee heard that the key responsibilities of the Food Safety Team were:

 

·  To register food businesses

·  To approve certain types of business

·  To maintain accurate records

·  To appoint competent staff

·  To prepare an annual Food Safety Plan

·  To make inspections and take enforcement action if required

·  To investigate complaints

·  To sample food for analysis

·  To provide advice and guidance for businesses

·  To Promote food safety

 

Mr Lehane informed the Committee of activities that were no longer undertaken as a result of savings made during 2015. 

 

Five Key facts were drawn from the report which were:

 

·  There were approximately 2300 food businesses in Bromley

·  This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

49.

WORK PROGRAMME AND CONTRACTS REGISTER pdf icon PDF 148 KB

Minutes:

CSD 16016

 

The Committee noted and reviewed the current Work Programme.

 

The Committee noted the Public Protection and Safety Contracts Register Summary.

 

RESOLVED that the Work Programme and Contracts Register report be noted.   

50.

PPS/PDS VISITS

Members of the Committee will be invited by the Fire Service to attend the formal opening of the refurbished Orpington Fire Station.

Minutes:

The Committee noted that they had been invited to the formal opening of the refurbished fire station in Orpington on 17th February 2016.

51.

DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING

The next meeting is scheduled for March 2nd 2016.

Minutes:

The Committee noted that the next meeting was scheduled for March 2nd 2016.