Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Tim Stevens, Deidre Bryant, and Kay Weiss.

The minutes of the last meeting held on 10^th March 2016 were received.

It was AGREED that the minutes be approved.

Report 16089

The Group reviewed progress made on matters arising from previous meetings.

The Group were informed that good progress had been made on agreeing SBP priorities, which were detailed in the draft Strategic Assessment Document.

The Group noted that that action plan for Prevent was being developed, and  it was anticipated that this would be signed off shortly.

The Police were still waiting for an update from the new London Mayor concerning the possibility of moving to a new BCU command structure. 

Concerning the SBP Control Strategy, the remaining key officer leads had now been clarified, and the details had been provided in the Matters Arising report.

The update concerning DV and the DHR will be detailed in the minutes pertaining to the domestic abuse sub group.   

RESOLVED that the Matters Arising report be noted.

The Chairman’s update was provided by the Borough Police Commander.

The MPS were still looking to implement the BCU command structure as noted in the previous minutes. Meetings had been held to discuss this, but no decisions had been taken to date. The Police were still waiting to hear from the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor.

The crime figures in Bromley were still decreasing. Bromley Police were currently 30 officers over target, but this figure was gradually decreasing. A new Area Commander (Julian Bennett) had recently been appointed.

To date, there had not been any impact on crime figures as a result of Brexit, or Euro 2016. The Borough Commander mentioned that Nigel Farage’s police security had to be reviewed as a result of threatening text messages.

The Executive Director of Environmental and Community Services informed the Group that LBB were currently on ‘Gold Duty’.    

RESOLVED that the Chairman’s update be noted.  

In accordance with the guidelines set out in the Council’s Constitution. Questions to the Strategic Group should be received by 5.00pm on 20^th June 2016.

No questions had been received.

The Safer Neighbourhood Board (SNB) update was provided by Councillor Kate Lymer. She updated the Group as follows:

The SNB AGM had been held the previous week. A new business representative was required.  Funding bids for this year would be finalised by the end of the week. Bids had been put in for:

·  Growing Against Violence (GAV)

·  Two LFB youth programmes

·  The Crime Summit

·  Two BYC campaigns

A public meeting had recently been held in the Crays, and another one was scheduled for July 21^st in West Wickham. The date of the Crime Summit was 17th September, and the final meeting for this year had been scheduled for November 17th; this was going to be held either in Kelsey Park or Elmers End. 

The Chairman felt that the SNB Bids were good, and noted that there had been an underspend the previous year. Anne Ball stated that the underspend could not be carried forward. The Chairman expressed concern that funding may not be available for the new Bids. Anne Ball stated that it was case of waiting to see what would be drafted in the new Police and Crime Plan that would be finalised over the summer. 

The Group noted the LBB Safer Bromley Partnership draft Strategic Assessment report. The report had been emailed separately to Group members prior to the meeting for their attention so that they could feed back to the Group at the meeting.

The Group heard that the Strategic Assessment (SA) had identified the issues regarded as priorities by the SBP for 2016-2019. These were:

1.  Domestic Abuse – D/Supt Trevor Lawry (MPS)

2.  Preventing Violent Extremism – Nigel Davies (LBB)

3.  Reducing Re-offending – Sharon Kirk or Lee (CRC)

4.  Serious Youth Violence and Gang Activity – Jane Bailey (LBB)

5.  Envirocrime and associated ASB – Dan Cartwright (LFB)

The Group noted the strategic ambition and strategic plan for each priority.

For Domestic Abuse, 3 strategic ambitions had been identified:

·  Early identification of emerging trends and gaps in service provision

·  A strategy to raise awareness, and to develop more effective engagement with communities

·  Ensuring that clear and concise referral pathways were established

For each strategic ambition, a strategic plan outlining how the ambition would, be achieved was explained.

The Group moved on to discuss the next priority of preventing violent extremism. Four strategic ambitions had been identified:

1.  Protecting young people and vulnerable adults from being drawn into extremism

2.  The establishment of clear and concise referral pathways

3.  Ensuring that adequate governance was in place to support the Prevent Agenda

4.  Ensuring that Bromley residents and businesses were protected

The Group heard that a Prevent Action Plan had been agreed, and the aim of the Plan was to ensure that the Borough was fully prepared to identify any risks that may be conducive to extremist behaviour.

A third priority that had been identified was the reduction of re-offending.

Three Strategic aims had been identified:

1.  Review the IOM function across Bromley

2.  Reinvigorate the Safer Bromley Partnership Reducing Reoffending Strategic Group

3.  Improve the coordination of the function of the Integrated Offender Management board

The fourth strategic ambition was to reduce serious youth violence and gang activity.

The strategic responses to the growth of this problem would include,

•  Raising awareness.

•  Engaging with hard to reach communities.

•  Establishing clear and concise referral pathways.

•  Early identification of emerging trends and gaps in provision.

•  Consider adopting the recently published Home Office strategic aims for gangs and youth violence, to ensure a robust action plan was in place

The fifth strategic ambition was to reduce Envirocrime and associated ASB, and the proposed strategic responses to this were outlined.

It was now the case that the Leads for each identified area would need to take forward the proposed action plans once agreed by the SBP. The Group was encouraged to provide feedback concerning the draft SBP Strategic Assessment report. It was intended that there would be an ongoing reporting cycle, and the funding and pots of money to carry out the work would need to be identified and sourced. The Group Leads would report back to the SBP. Ms Roberts requested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

The MOPAC update was provided by Anne Ball. She informed the Group that a new Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC) had been confirmed, and this was Sophie Linden. Sophie was previously the Deputy Mayor for Hackney, and had also been Special Adviser on Policing and Crime to Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The new Policing and Crime Plan would be drafted over the summer, and would go for external consultation from September onwards. The Plan would need implementation by the end of March 2017 at the latest.  As part of the planning process the DMPC would be deciding on future London Crime Prevention Fund (LCPF) funding for local authority projects. MOPAC should be able to provide more information on future LCPF funding to local authorities in September 2016.

.

The draft Prevent Action Plan was distributed by Mr Vale.

It was hoped that the SBP would agree the draft, which would then be signed off by the Chief Executive. Subsequent to agreement and sign off, the Plan would then be published.

The Prevent Action Plan was broken down into 6 key areas, and for each key area, project activities had been defined. The 6 key areas were:

1.  Prevent Governance and Problem Solving

2.  WRAP (Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent) Briefings and Delivery of Training

3.  Education and Safeguarding Children

4.  Effective Channel Panel Processes

5.  Internet extremism vigilance on LBB PC’s (including libraries)

6.  LBB property and review of hall hiring process

The Group noted that WRAP was a workshop that was designed for front line staff to recognise initial signs of those vulnerable to radicalisation.

With respect to Education and Safeguarding, it was noted that young people were most at risk of radicalisation.  Education sectors had the most contact with young people, and should ensure that staff had the necessary training and referral structures in place to identify those at risk of radicalisation. The education sector was subject to specific guidance outlined within the Prevent Duty Guidance. The Channel Panel aimed to reduce the number of vulnerable individuals being led into extremism.

Mr Vale stated that it was the responsibility of the SBP to lead on Prevent, and that a senior officer from the Council should be identified as the overall Prevent Lead for LBB. The Chairman asked who would be circulating the Prevent Action Plan to the Chief Executive. Cllr Lymer stated that it would go to the PDS Committee first.

Cllr Lymer referenced the recent Ofsted report, and noted that the section of the report dealing with Prevent stated that the Prevent work that LBB had been doing was good, and was delivering in line with statutory duties. The Chairman was happy for the Prevent Action Plan to be referred to the Chief Executive.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the Prevent Action Plan be endorsed, and subject to PDS approval, go to the Chief Executive for sign off. 

(2) a senior officer from LBB be appointed as the overall Prevent Lead for the Council  

Phil Powell (Stakeholder Engagement Manager-London Ambulance Service) attended to provide the LAS update.

Mr Powell stated that performance levels were improving, and that staffing levels were good. A problem with recruitment had existed previously, but now the LAS was fully staffed. New recruits were now in training, and the training took 6 months to complete.

There had been a CQC inspection last year which was not good, but now things were moving forward under the leadership of Fiona Moore who was the new CEO. A two week event had been undertaken where management had gone out and spoke to staff. There was now a drop in the number of paramedics retiring, and many had relocated to alternate roles in healthcare. Paramedics were now regarded as autonomous clinicians.

The Chairman enquired if the LAS required any assistance from members of the SBP. Mr Powell replied that no help was required as the ambulance service was not borough based, but was rather a pan London organisation. The Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Safety enquired if LFB was co-responding with LAS. The Borough Fire Commander stated that successful trials of co-responding had taken place, and were ongoing. This was something that could not be expanded too quickly, in case it diverted the LFB away from core activities. It was confirmed that the trails had taken place in Merton, Lambeth, and Lewisham.

The Chairman enquired where DV injury data would sit, and Mr Vale stated that he would follow up this up. 

Mr Vale (Head of Trading Standards and Community Safety) asked what data sets were kept by LAS, and if they could be shared. Mr Powell responded that the data was broken down by CCG areas. He suggested that contact be made with the Commissioning Support Unit of the CCG for more information. It was agreed that this was an idea that should be investigated further. 

RESOLVED that:

(1) Rob Vale would investigate where DV injury data was located, and if the data could be shared

(2) Contact to be made with the CCG CSU to see what data they held, and if this could be shared.

The Group heard that the new legislation concerning NPS substances had now been passed.

There was no indication that these substances were being sold openly, and that for now the matter could be removed from future agendas.   

It was noted that previously, concerns had been raised about Nitrous Oxide capsules that had been found near a school. The Group agreed that awareness needed to be raised in schools, and with local retailers. As this was a dual use product, it could be sold legally.

In the previous meeting, concerns had been raised about discarded nitrous oxide capsules in the Ramsden and Farnborough areas. Concerns had been raised not only about the young people inhaling the substance, but also with the fact that no one was cleansing the environment. It was agreed that this should be taken up as a piece of work going forward.  

 A report had been presented to the Group from Victoria Roberts (Interim DV/VAWG Commissioner).

Section 2.1 of the report detailed some of the work that had been carried out to date concerning the DHR (‘Susan’), Task and Finish Group.

The Group were informed that the Task and Finish Group met on 16^th June 2016 to look at the progress made to date by various agencies against the DHR action plan. The Group were dismayed to learn that out of the 11 members invited to the Task and Finish Group meeting, only two attended; these were Lina Wallace (Victim Support) and Clare Lewin (CCG). Superintendent Trevor Lawry explained that it was important to receive feedback from the other partner organisations so that the DHR recommendations could be properly implemented. This was a sentiment echoed by Ms Roberts, who highlighted that buy in was required from all agencies.

The Chairman asked Ms Roberts to supply him with the details of the partner agencies that had failed to attend, and stated that he would contact those agencies concerned, and would highlight the need for them to participate in the process. He asked Barbara Godfrey from Oxleas why Oxleas did not send a representative. Ms Godfrey responded that she was not aware of the email or of the meeting of the Task and Finish Group. The Chairman was very concerned that representatives of many of the partners had not attended, and noted that this was a very important piece of work that needed to be completed; it was also the case that report had to be completed and sent to the Home Office.  

The MOPAC contract was discussed, and the various projects supported by MOPAC funding were noted. The Group were concerned that all of the MOPAC commissioned services were contracted until March 2017 only, and there were no other sources of funding currently. The Group were updated that a Gateway Review outlining strategic aims would be submitted to the Executive for approval, and then a funding application would be submitted to MOPAC. Ms Roberts suggested that external sources of funding should be considered as a contingency.

Anne Ball from MOPAC explained that all of the current projects would fall within the remit of the London Crime Prevention Programme, and funding allocations would be made after the programme was finalised. The EDECS (Executive Director of Environmental and Community Services) pointed out that LBB would have difficulty in commissioning services going forward until the funding issue was resolved.

Rob Vale (Head of Trading Standards and Community Services) informed the Group that this was a matter that was flagged up on the risk register as high risk, and that similar circumstances had arisen previously, which meant that LBB officers had to work to tight deadlines at short notice to get funding applications in on time. Ms Roberts highlighted the fact that it took 5-6 months to recommission a service, and Anne Ball stated that MOPAC were relying on the new administration at City Hall.

Ms  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

The Group were informed that the SBP lead for the Youth Offending Sub Group would now be Jane Bailey, LBB Director of Education.

The Group heard that the Lead for the SBP Gangs Sub Group would now be Jane Bailey, LBB Director of Education.

Amanda Mumford (LBB Community Safety Officer) and Lee Cole from the London Community Rehabilitation Company attended to update the Group and answer any questions concerning Integrated Offender Management. 

It was noted that the SBP had previously experienced problems maintaining consistent membership from both Probation Services and the Community Rehabilitation Company. It was hoped that with the appointment to the sub group of Sharon Kirk, (assisted by Lee Cole), that this problem would now cease. 

The Group were reminded that since 2013 there had been a need for an IOM Co-ordinator. LBB now had the money to appoint a part time IOM Co-ordinator. Mr Vale stated that there was a need to re-establish the IOM Board. Mr Cole informed the Group that he was aware of three IOM co-ordinators working in the south east, and these were based at Lambeth, Southwark and Sutton. Because of this, he felt that he could be of assistance to LBB in helping to set up a performance framework.

Local IOM models would vary to reflect local circumstances and priorities, but the common elements were:

•all partners manage offenders together

•a local response to local problems

•all offenders can potentially be included

•offenders face up to their responsibility or face the consequences

•best use is made of existing programmes and governance arrangements

•achieving long-term desistance from crime

Mr Vale stated that LBB should now be able to fund a part time IOM Co-ordinator for two days per week. IOM funding would be part of the application to MOPAC for funding. The governance and Chairperson for the Board would need to be decided. In the London Model, it was the local authority that would normally chair the IOM Board. This may need to be tasked at Director level. It was suggested that Dan Jones (LBB Assistant Director, Street Scene, Green Space, and Public Protection), may be able to take over this role. The IOM SBP Sub Group would need to be allocated a Lead, and it was suggested that this could be either Sharon Kirk (Assistant Chief Officer (ACO) Stakeholders and Partnerships-CRC) or Lee Cole (CRC Business Co-ordinator).

RESOLVED that:

(1) A part time LBB IOM Co-coordinator be appointed

(2) The governance and Chairperson of the IOM Board to be decided

(3) The SBP IOM Sub Group Lead to be appointed

The Borough Fire Commander was present to give the ASB update. There had recently been a spate of arson and fire starting on the Ramsden Estate, but this had now reduced. The LFB had identified 4 of the young people involved, and they had since been placed on LFB LIFE courses.  

Operation Crystal (OC) would be ongoing until March 2017, and £25k had been provided for an anti fly tipping initiative. The Group heard that OC was still hitting targets, but it was the case now that exit and contingency plans had to be developed.

The Borough Fire Commander confirmed that he had now received a list of empty business properties, and the LFB were now undertaking preventative work. There was still an issue concerning ASB and the use of motor bikes and scooters. The use of off the road bikes by the Police was having a good effect, as they provided greater accessibility to the young people involved in this form of ASB.

Mr Terry Belcher asked if the Fire Brigade checked electric blankets, and the response to this was no as the LFB were not qualified electricians.

The date of the next meeting is 15^th September 2016.  

The next meeting is scheduled for 10.00am on September 15th, 2016.