Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Kim Botting, Sharon Baldwin, Alf Kennedy, Dr Robert Hadley and Emily Warnham.  

There were no declarations of interest.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions that are not specific to reports on the agenda must have been received in writing 10 working days before the date of the meeting. Any questions for the Chairman or the Portfolio Holder that are not specific to the agenda should have been received by the Democratic Services Team no later than 5.00pm on October 31st. 

Questions specifically concerning reports on the agenda should be received within two working days of the publication date of the agenda.  Please ensure that questions specifically regarding reports on the agenda are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5 pm on Friday, 8^th November.

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

No questions were received for the attention of the Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Enforcement.

No questions were received for the Chairman from Councillors or from Members of the public.

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of the Public Protection and Enforcement PDS Committee held on 10^th September 2019.

The Portfolio Holder referenced section 26 of the minutes relating to the Portfolio Holder update. The text referred to ‘A meeting at London Councils’. It was agreed that text should be added so that the sentence read, ‘A meeting at London Councils regarding County Lines’.

The Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to section 29 of the minutes relating to the Risk Register Update, and specifically the post-meeting note concerning the FSA (Food Standards Agency) Audit.

A Member referenced the High Court Appeal Hearing which sought an injunction to prevent Traveller incursions. He asked what the likely outcome of the Hearing would be, and the response was that it was not clear at this time.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 10^th September are agreed and signed as a correct record.

CSD19159

The Committee noted the updates that had been recorded on the Matters Outstanding report.

The Chairman mentioned the note on the report relating to APCOA and the fact that APCOA did not keep a record of out of hours calls. Monitoring took place on responses only.

RESOLVED that the updates on the Matters Outstanding report are noted.

Superintendent Colin Carswell and Chief Inspector Craig Knight attended to provide the police update.

The police had provided a document entitled ‘Bromley ASB and Crime Performance & Analysis’ prior the meeting. This had been disseminated to Members previously. The data provided in the document was correct as at 10^th October 2019.

The briefing provided analysis in the following areas:

·  Stop and Search

·  Personal Robbery

·  Theft from Motor Vehicle

·  Residential Burglary

·  Violence with Injury

·  Criminal Damage

·  Public Order

·  Shoplifting

·  Theft from the Person

·  Crimes v Sanctioned Detections

·  Domestic Abuse Incidents

·  Hate Crime

·  Response Times

·  Victim Satisfaction

The Chairman had decided before the meeting that the format for dealing with the police update would change, and that Members should proceed straight to questions on the briefing with a cut off time of 30 minutes. Any questions that had not been asked after the cut off period would be emailed to the police for written response.

A Member asked why LBB had a greater number of stop and searches undertaken when compared to those boroughs that ranked below LBB in the data that detailed the proportion of stop and searches by Borough. Superintendent Carswell answered that as far as the Bromley of Borough was concerned, nothing had changed with respect to the methodology and thinking around stop and search operations. It was still a matter of undertaking stop and search when it was proportionate and necessary. The Police Commissioner had expressed the view that stop and search was a very valuable and necessary tactic.

Superintendent Carswell stated that he was not able to answer for other boroughs, but he expected officers in the south area BCU to undertake stop and search confidently, politely and professionally. In some situations, stop and search could be carried out for drugs or weapons, in other situations it could be in response to suspected burglary offences.

A Member noted that stop and search with respect to searches for drugs was the most prominent reason for stop and search being implemented. She further noted that the second highest number of arrests was in respect of theft, fraud and other counterfeit activities. She asked why this was not reflected in the stop and search data. Superintendent Carswell explained that this was because not all suspected offences were legal grounds to allow stop and search to be actualized.

It was pointed out that a person could be stopped and searched for suspected possession of drugs, but then during the course of the search there may be reason to believe that some other offence had been committed. If, for example a person was found to be in possession of stolen goods, then it was likely that the individual concerned would be arrested for suspected burglary. 

A Member endeavoured to suggest recommendations to the police regarding the format of the police data report, and its content. The Chairman said that any such recommendations should be directed to the Assistant Director for Public Protection and Enforcement outside of the meeting. She would then liaise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The Portfolio Holder updated the Committee as follows:

Since the last meeting LBB had hosted the Crime Summit which was a great success. The Portfolio Holder thanked those who had attended.

On September 12^th the Portfolio Holder chaired the meeting of the Safer Bromley Partnership; the minutes of the SBP meeting had been incorporated into the PP&E PDS agenda pack. At the SBP meeting, LBB’s MOPAC (Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) specific point of contact (SPOC) advised that out of £14m from MOPAC’s ‘Violence Reduction Unit’, LBB would receive £50k for this financial year and another £50k for 2020/21. The Portfolio Holder expressed the view that this was a rather small allocation from a fund of £14m.

The Portfolio Holder stated that MOPAC had spent over a year debating who would be leading the VRU, and in working out the Unit’s terms of reference, but had only given Bromley Council two weeks notice to submit proposals for what the money should be spent on. Resultantly, the Assistant Director for Public Protection and Enforcement and others had to work right up until the last moment to finalise the proposals.

In brief, the proposals were:

·  £21k to be spent on the targeted mentoring of the younger siblings of young people who had been involved in serious youth violence, or who had been referred to the MEGA Panel.

·  £6k for the development of a peer mentoring offer to local schools

·  £13k to be spent on focused themed and diversionary activities to engage young people who it was felt may be at risk, or who may be heading towards serious youth violence. This could include activities during the school holidays, external tutors, sports or music activities; it could also include building relationships with youth workers who may be able to help the young people to develop their employability skills 

·  £10k would be allocated to school work in Penge, Anerley and the Crystal Palace areas. The work would centre on building relationships and signposting young people to various local youth provisions

The Portfolio Holder stated that if the Chairman desired that the success or otherwise of these initiatives be scrutinised going forward, then she would be happy to provide future updates to the Committee.

As part of Children’s Social Care Practice week in September, all the Portfolio Holders and PDS Chairmen were asked to observe Children’s Social Care Practioners in action. There were forty different opportunities to observe. The Portfolio Holder felt it would be best if she observed the activity most closely linked to the work of the PP&E PDS Committee, and so she attended a MEGA Panel meeting.

She explained that ‘MEGA’ stood for ‘Multi Agency Exploitation and Gangs Affiliation’ and was made up of various agencies, including representatives from the Police, Social Workers, Youth Workers, Oxleas and LBB’s Gangs and Serious Youth Violence Officer. Due to the large number of attendees, the meeting had to be held in the Council Chamber.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the meetings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

FSD 19100

Members were briefed concerning the latest budget monitoring position for 2019/20 for the Public Protection and Enforcement Portfolio based on expenditure and activity levels to the end of September 2019. It was noted that there had been an underspend of £9k, but there would be no underspend by the end of the financial year.

Members noted that the previous ASB Co-ordinator had now been replaced and a new incumbent was now in place. Issues relating to MOPAC funding were discussed as was the funding allocated for three Domestic Homicide Reviews. It was also noted that LBB had to pick up some of the cost of the Coroner’s investigation into the Croydon tram accident as LBB was part of the same shared coronial district.  

Members noted the contents of the report and supported the recommendations as outlined in the report.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder approves the latest 2019/2020 budget projection for the Public Protection and Enforcement Portfolio.

ES19082

Members were briefed concerning the Draft Enforcement Policy for Public Protection. They noted that the report sought agreement to undertake public consultation on the draft Enforcement Policy for Public Protection, which had been reviewed to take account of changes in legislation, including changes brought about by the Regulator’s Code.

The Committee supported the report’s recommendations as outlined in the report.

RESOLVED that

1.  The draft Public Protection Enforcement Policy, is subject to public consultation until 24^th January 2020.

2.  The Committee receives feedback from the consultation at the next meeting on 4^th February 2020.

3.   Delegated authority is given to the Director of Environment and Public Protection, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder  to make minor amendments to the Policy if required.

4.   The finalised enforcement policy is recommended to be agreed by the Executive on 1^st April 2020.

ES19074

The Committee received an update regarding the findings of the post completion reviews that had been undertaken with respect to the refurbishment of the CCTV Control Room.

It was reported that it was standard protocol for post completion reviews of capital projects to be carried out. The CCTV Control Room refurbishment was completed within budget. The initial budget allocation for the project was £340,000. The actual cost was £307,613 which had resulted in an underspend of £32,387. There were no outstanding issues. 

A Member queried if LBB still had the same number of cameras, the answer was affirmative and the number was 191. It was believed that all of the cameras were in order and working. A Member asked what happened to the revenue generated from the fixed penalties resulting from CCTV enforcement. It was noted that the income generated was directed back into the Capital Programme Budget. 

A Member enquired how the CCTV images were stored. It was explained that the images would usually be stored on a hard drive for 31 days. If, however the CCTV footage was required in a case involving criminal proceedings, then the images would be stored for 6 years.

A Member referenced section 5.1 of the report and the fact that the replacement recorder had been defined as ‘modular’. It was suggested that it would have been helpful if an explanation of the term ‘modular’ had been provided in the report. 

Members heard that a meeting had been held to discuss the possibility of an independent privately funded CCTV system in Chislehurst.

Members noted the update and accepted the recommendations as outlined in the report.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder notes and endorses the findings of the Post Completion Reviews that had been carried out with respect of the CCTV Control Room.

The minutes of the meeting of the Safer Bromley Partnership have been included for Members’ information. This is because the PDS Committee has a scrutiny responsibility for the Partnership.   

The Committee noted the minutes of the Safer Bromley Partnership that had met on 12^th September 2019.

Members were reminded that the PDS Committee was responsible for scrutinising the Partnership and this was the reason why the Committee would be looking at the SBP minutes going forward.

Members were advised that once a year a new plan for the Community Safety Strategy would be disseminated. Updates would be provided on the Strategy and on progress made. The SBP had the responsibility of drafting and implementing the Strategy. 

The Chairman asked who was looking into the incident where a young person had been stabbed at a Youth Services event. The Chairman was informed that the person that had committed the crime had been arrested and was being questioned by the police. A Major Incident Plan was being drawn up and an investigation of the incident would hopefully show what lessons could be learned.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Safer Bromley Partnership are noted.   

ES19068

The Head of Performance Management and Business Support attended to answer questions arising from the presentation of the Environment and Public Protection Risk Register.

It was noted that the Risk Register formed part of the evidence base for the Annual Governance Statement and had therefore been reviewed by the EPP (Environment and Public Protection) DMT, the Corporate Risk Management Group and the Audit Sub Committee.

The Head of Performance Management and Business Support explained the differences between gross and net risk ratings, and the Committee was pleased to learn that no risk was currently flagged as ‘red’ following the implementation of management controls.

The Chairman asked for an update concerning Arboricultural Services, and was informed that good progress was being made in implementing the recommendations suggested by the Audit Sub-Committee. The Service had been short of two officers, but one officer had now been recruited. The remaining role would be a development role that would most likely be filled by an Apprentice. The gross risk rating for  Arboricultural Services would remain as 12 until all of the recommendations were in place.

The FSA (Food Standards Agency) risk would be removed going forward as all of the high risk premises had now been audited and licensed.

A Member asked if trees were being inspected and it was confirmed that contractors had been appointed to do this, as well as inspections being undertaken by the Planning Department.

It was noted that more volunteers were required to provide help as emergency responders. The Assistant Director for Public Protection and the Head of Performance Management and Business Support had been trained so that they could function as ‘Silver’ emergency response officers if required. All LBB Directors had been trained to ‘Gold’ Level. 

The Chairman expressed his congratulations to David Tait and the Emergency Planning Team for all of their hard work. He asked if training would be provided for Members, and it was agreed that this would be referred back to Mr Tait to comment.

The Chairman asked if there were concerns around the disposal of waste post Brexit. He was informed that talks had taken place with Veolia regarding this and that they were not concerned. Some European countries were still glad to receive waste from the UK as they needed it to keep their incinerators burning.

It was mentioned that plastics that could not be recycled would be burned instead. It was noted that black plastic could not be recycled as the lasers used in the recycling process could not identify black plastic; because of this, black plastic was being phased out.   

RESOLVED that the Public Protection and Enforcement PDS Committee notes the Risk Register Report and the appended Risk Registers, together with progress made since the previous meeting.

ES19078

The Committee received a report that outlined the delivery actions identified as a result of recommendations from the Council’s Fly-Tipping and Enforcement Working Group. Members were briefed that targets had been set to reduce the number of fly-tipping incidents in the Borough to less than 3000 per annum. Similarly, a target had been set to undertake enforcement activity in 10% of fly-tipping cases.

The Committee was briefed concerning the number of fly-tipping incidents and tonnage of waste that had been dumped during the first six months of 2019/2020. It was noted that 7.2% of these cases had been subject to enforcement activity.

An awareness campaign would be undertaken and it was planned to name and shame individuals that had been caught fly-tipping. This would commence in Penge, and then move to Mottingham.

Mobile patrols were planned to undertake stop and search activities on vehicles that were suspected of being involved with fly-tipping. Some of these operations would take place at night, with assistance from the police. This type of operation had previously worked well in the Crays.

Members noted that a Fly-Tipping and Enforcement Working Group had been established, and that the Group had developed a Fly-Tipping Action Plan (FTAP) which had been included as an appendix to the main report. The Neighbourhood Enforcement Manager highlighted how the public could report incidents of fly-tipping via ‘Fix My Street’ (FMS).

The Vice Chairman pointed out that there appeared to be inconsistencies in the way that fly-tipping figures were reported across England. Because of this he suggested that ‘trends’ should be treated with caution. It was agreed that some research be undertaken to examine what other boroughs regarded as ‘fly-tipping’.   

It was noted that the annual removal cost for fly-tipping was a fixed price sum, as it had been included in the price of the Street Environment Contract. The disposal of the waste was carried out at the Council’s Central Waste Depot at Waldo Road.

A Member asked that if a person dumped rubbish at a recycling area without sorting it out and recycling  the waste properly, would this still be regarded as fly-tipping. The answer to this was affirmative and that the matter could be reported.

The actions proposed in the FTAP were funded from the Members Fly-Tipping Initiative Fund. The following financials were noted:

·  Total current value of the fund was £250k

·  £15,696 had been spent

·  £113,480 had been committed

·  £120,824 remained in the fund

·  The sum of identified proposed activities was £273,360

It was possible therefore that some alternative funding may need to be sourced if all of the proposed activities were undertaken.

Members noted and commented on the Fly-Tipping Action Plan document, and the Terms of Reference for the Working Group.

RESOLVED that the Fly-Tipping Action Plan is noted. 

ES19080 DRR

Members noted the report which briefed them regarding a wide range of planning cases.

The Head of Planning and the Development Support Team attended to present the report and answer questions. He explained that the Planning Enforcement Team was responsible for investigating different types of breaches of planning control across the Borough. He expressed the view that progress had been made in reaching the projected enforcement targets as detailed in the Portfolio Plan.

Members heard that there had been a steady increase in the amount of enquiries received over the last couple of years—this was mainly in the area of ‘Operational Development’. Members were interested to note that between April and October 2019, the Planning Department had received an additional 516 new cases to deal with. At the time of the meeting, there were 580 cases either under investigation or pending consideration.

The Head of Planning and the Development Support Team highlighted that administrative procedures had been strengthened and now all cases were recorded.

The Committee was pleased to note section 3.18 of the report which highlighted intended improvements in the process by which officers would report back to Members. A new bi-monthly or quarterly report was intended which would detail all enforcement cases by Ward. This would mean that going forward, Ward Members would be able to completely understand what was occurring in their respective wards.

Members were concerned to note that a member of the Planning team had retired and another was on maternity leave. This meant that the number of full time staff dealing with cases had reduced to three. It had been difficult to recruit temporary agency staff and so two members of staff had been seconded to help out. Members agreed that it was important that the team should be working with a compliment of 5 full time staff.

RESOLVED that the Planning Enforcement Progress and Monitoring Report is noted.  

ES19076

Members noted the Contracts Register report, and the fact that on this occasion there was no part 2 contracts register extract.

The Mortuary Contract had been left as ‘red’ on the report as this represented a snapshot from the Contracts Database from a point before the Mortuary Contract was awarded. However, it was highlighted that matters relating to the contract had now been resolved, and a new contract was now operational. The contract would not appear as a red procurement risk in the next report. The Chairman asked if an annual report could be produced for this contract.

The contract for Dogs and Pest Control Services had been marked as ‘amber’ because the next procurement stage was due for consideration.

RESOLVED that

1) The appended £50k Contracts Register is noted

2) It is noted that the appended Contracts Register formed part of the Council’s commitment to data transparency

3) An annual update report be provided to the Committee regarding the Mortuary Contract  

The Committee noted the update concerning the percentage of validated licences for Houses in Multiple Occupation. Members queried why the percentage of licences achieved had been falling. The projected outcome was now 53% whereas the target was 75%. It was explained that due to a change in the law, the number houses classified as HMOs had increased which had resulted in an increased workload for officers. It was also the case that the number of HMO officers had decreased from 4 to 2. The resourcing of the HMO Team would be looked at.

The Chairman was pleased to note that the inspection of high risk food premises had now been completed and signed off by the FSA.

RESOLVED that the Public Protection and Enforcement Performance Overview is noted. 

CSD19161

Members noted the current Work Programme.

It was agreed that the Committee should return to receiving annual presentation updates from SLAM, and that they be invited to present to a future meeting.

It was also noted that the Draft Community Safety Strategy Report would be presented to the PP&E PDS meeting in February 2020.

A Member asked if the Committee should consider the future of the widespread sale of fireworks. The Chairman was of the view that the problems associated with the sale and safe use of fireworks and the antisocial effects created was a national issue. It would therefore be difficult to enforce any local action/ prohibition. It was agreed that the matter did not currently fall within the purview of the Committee. Underage sales would however remain a PP&E PDS responsibility.

RESOLVED that the current Work Programme is noted and that SLAM be invited to present to the Committee at a future meeting.

The Chairman to move that the Press and Public be excluded during consideration of the items listed below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the press or pubic were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information. 

RESOLVED that the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 10^th September 2019 are agreed and signed as a correct record.