Minutes:
The Portfolio Holder informed the Committee that the dog contracts had been extended by six months. The Portfolio Holder updated the Committee with respect to gaps in LBB’s CCTV network in the vicinity of the Odeon Cinema in Bromley. It was now the case that this issue had been resolved with the installation of three CCTV cameras covering the Hill Car Park near the cinema. These had been installed at a good price, and were covering an area that was a known black spot for gangs.
The Portfolio Holder updated the Committee with respect to initiatives taken to combat fly tipping. These involved placing tracking devices on lorries, the covert placement of cameras, and intelligence led investigations. A prosecution was due shortly, which would be publicised as a deterrent.
The Portfolio Holder appraised the Committee concerning the issue of gangs in Bromley. Bromley had previously been gang free, but in recent months had been suffering from the placement of “gang nominals” in the Borough. The Portfolio Holder felt that the correct protocols were not being adhered to by other boroughs. Gangs had now been identified in Penge, the Crays and Mottingham, and the Portfolio Holder had recently attended a Gangs Review meeting. It was the case that other boroughs had been placing gang nominals in Bromley without informing LBB or the police. LBB had written to the offending Boroughs to complain.
The placement of gang nominals in Bromley seemed to be correlated to an increase in crime levels in the Borough. One of the main gangs identified was the “Bromley South Cartel” also known as “The Murder Squad.” Links with gangs in Bromley schools had been identified, and there were concerns about grooming. It was now the case that Bromley was an emerging gang borough, but LBB and Bromley Police were determined to do all that they could to prevent this from worsening, and to look at what measures could be adopted to reverse this trend. This was an issue that the Executive would be looking into as a priority.
The Portfolio Holder advised the Committee that an approach was going to be made to MOPAC to release funding that could be used to help tackle the gangs problem in Bromley.
Councillor Fortune asked:
· What was the process for “dumping” gang nominals in Bromley?
· What constituted a Gang?
· What was the social composition of the Bromley South Cartel?
The Portfolio Holder answered that the gang nominals were placed in LBB by other local authority housing services, by probation services, and by designated gang units. The placements would normally be to a Registered Social Landlord, which in LBB’s case would usually be Affinity Sutton. It was often the case that LBB would not be told about these placements. The Portfolio Holder felt that it was important in such cases for Affinity Sutton to remind the families of those placed under this programme, that they had social responsibilities with respect to their tenancies and behaviour, and that they may lose their tenancies if they were found guilty of anti-social behaviour.
Jan Smith (Youth Programme Manager) advised that the placements were private arrangements, but that protocols existed, and LBB should be informed.
The Portfolio Holder explained that the Bromley South Cartel consisted of members aged between thirteen and twenty. It appeared that there were links with Bromley Schools, and that schools were being targeted for new members.
The Youth Programme Manager advised that the police had a very defined definition of what constituted a gang:
· The individuals would identify themselves as belonging to a gang
· The individuals would be “tagged” and recognisable to each other
· They were organised and held meetings
· They had criminal intent
· They had a command and control structure
The Portfolio Holder concluded by stating that LBB would be writing to every council leader in London in an attempt to reduce the number of gang nominals being placed in Bromley.
RESOLVED:
(1) that the update from the Portfolio Holder be noted
(2) that MOPAC be approached for funding to deal with the issues connected with gangs in Bromley
(3) that the Portfolio Holder and the Leader write to other local authorities in an attempt to reduce the number of placements of “gang nominals” in Bromley