Minutes:
Councillor Kate Lymer provided the Portfolio Holder update.
Minute 128 referenced in the Matters Arising report required a Portfolio Holder update concerning action needed to plug the gap in the Emergency Planning and Business Continuity Team.
A graduate intern was commencing work in April for 6 months. The graduate would work three days per week supporting the ongoing work around Business Continuity.
The Corporate Safety Advisor post was 0.6 fte and was currently vacant. It was hoped to extend this role to five days per week; the additional two days would be dedicated to emergency planning and business continuity. A job specification was being written for this, and the proposal was being evaluated by HR. If the proposal can be funded recruitment would proceed.
A request was being made for an additional £40k for a full time support post to support both the work of Laurie Grasty in Resilience and the new Corporate Safety/Business Continuity split role.
There was no capacity in the existing budgets for either of these roles, however it was confirmed to the Executive Director of Environmental Services by the Chief Executive that the additional funding required would be found corporately. The Portfolio Holder stated that it would be useful if Members present could agree that the additional income from the licensing advice fees and food hygiene re-scores fees could be used to contribute.
Recruitment was also underway for a graduate intern to assist with the commissioning of the stray dogs and CCTV contracts.
A meeting had been held in February with Sophie Linden (Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime) to discuss the Mayor’s Policing and Crime Plan. She met with the Leader, Portfolio Holder, the Deputy Borough Police Commander and the Executive Director for Environmental and Community Services.
LBB stated that it would like some emphasis on crimes against the elderly - and also more reference to burglary, anti-social behaviour and traffic enforcement around speeding and mobile phone use. This feedback proved ineffective and the Crime Plan was not changed.
Part of the meeting was to agree LBB’s locally set police targets. LBB was allowed to choose two for the next year. These could be reviewed and changed annually. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime had recommended that LBB’s two priorities be theft from shops and common assault. LBB disagreed with this as although the percentage increase for common assault was one of the highest, the actual number of common assault incidences in Bromley was small.
Regarding theft from shops LBB disagreed with this as it would result in a large amount of police resource being focussed in one location - i.e. Bromley Town Centre, at the expense of the rest of the Borough.
LBB proposed that that burglary and non-domestic violence with injury be allocated as the two local priorities. These proposals were accepted as Bromley’s two local priorities.
The Portfolio Holder informed the Committee that she had recently attended a high level group meeting at London Councils with Sophie Linden, to discuss, shape and understand the co-commissioning pot of funds process. The Group made known to Ms Linden that they were opposed to the plans, and that the timescales outlined in the proposals were not achievable.
In the pre-meeting, MOPAC had provided a document with suggestions of the type of funding programmes boroughs should co-commission: these were female offending, youth offending and an offender health service. The Portfolio Holder explained that LBB did not fund any of these using MOPAC money, so those suggestions were irrelevant to Bromley It was explained that LBB undertook VAWG programmes. Ms Linden agreed to add VAWG to their list of suggested priorities. She also agreed to add in crimes against the elderly and burglary.
The Portfolio Holder was informed that MOPAC would expect bids to include match funding. There would be another meeting in May where issues would hopefully become clearer. The Head of Trading Standards and Community Safety had been meeting with other boroughs to discuss what projects could be undertaken collaboratively.
A Member suggested that it may be a good idea in the future if LBB’s GLA representative attended the meetings, and that questions may need to be raised at a scrutiny committee meeting. The Chairman expressed concern that Inner London may be getting the most funding, and that the Mayor had to represent all of London and not just zone 1.
A Member suggested that SNBs (Safer Neighbourhood Boards) would be made stronger under Sophie Linden, and that it was significant that Bromley’s SNB was the only SNB to be represented at the London Council’s meeting.
It was noted that the FSA (Food Standards Agency) would be conducting an audit in LBB on April 27th.
A Member queried the contracts highlighted in ‘red’ on the Contracts Register-these were the contracts dependant on MOPAC funding. It was noted that the register was slightly out of date and that as the contracts had been extended they were no longer in the ‘red’ risk category. However this could change going forward if the funding issues were not resolved.
RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder update be noted.
.
.