Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed Chief Superintendent Jeff Boothe to the Committee. Mr Boothe was the new Tri-Borough Police Commander for Bromley, Croydon and Sutton. Mr Boothe apologised for not being able to attend the previous meeting of the Committee. It was noted that Mr Boothe would also be attending the Crime Summit which was scheduled for September 29th.
Mr Boothe stated that budgetary considerations were not the only reason why the MET was changing to the new combined BCU (Basic Command Unit) models. Previously, there had been 32 Borough Police Commanders, now there would be 12--in charge of 12 BCUs. Some BCUs would be comprised of two boroughs, some three, and some four. Mr Boothe had been in post since May 2018, and his Command Team had been in post since June 2018.
Each BCU would consist of five strands with a Superintendent in charge of each strand.
The five strands were:
· Response
· Neighbourhood Management
· Investigations
· Safeguarding
· HQ Corporate Functions
The role of the Borough Commander was now different. The role of the Tri-Borough Commander now involved having oversight of each strand. It was noted that Bromley was the largest area of responsibility in terms of geographical size, but 50% of the crime emanated from Croydon.
The H.Q. function would control how resources would be deployed going forward. It was anticipated that resources would be deployed locally, and that Bromley response teams would stay in Bromley. It was hoped that effectiveness in deployment would be enhanced and that the quality of response would be improved. If an urgent call was made concerning domestic violence or other serious offences, then a CID vehicle would attend first. This would be managed by an Operations Room.
The new model was not expected to be fully operational until February 2019. Mr Boothe assured the Committee that lessons had been learnt from previous BCU trials, not least in terms of response times. The Mayor had made a commitment that there would be two ward officers and a PCSO in each ward, and this would be honoured. All wards would be fully resourced, and these assets would be ring fenced.
There would be an uplift in resources into Neighbourhood Policing. Additional officers would be assigned to schools and from the Neighbourhood Tasking Team if there was a particular problem in a ward that required extra attention for a period of time.
A Partnership and Prevention Team (P&P Team) was being introduced. The P&P Team would be responsible for identifying and developing good practice with respect to Neighbourhood Policing.
A Member commented that she was glad the commitment to ward officers and PCSOs was being maintained. She asked how long the additional resources from the Tasking Team would be assigned to a particular ward. Mr Boothe answered that the Tasking Team would remain until the problem was solved, and then they would be used elsewhere as required.
A Member expressed concern about the transport arrangements for ward officers. She wanted to see a more effective way of officers getting to their areas of operation. A Member expressed the view that Neighbourhood Teams should ideally be located in their own ward. Mr Boothe explained that efforts were being made to work collaboratively with other blue light partners in terms of co-location. Barriers to this were funding and security arrangements. The police had also been exploring the idea of using sponsored vehicles. A Member asked if an update concerning these matters could be provided at the next meeting.
Mr Boothe made the following points regarding the transport arrangements for ward officers:
· The reality had to be understood that there were only a finite number of vehicles available
· An assessment would need to be made of what was the quickest and most practical way for officers to be transported
· The use of buses had the benefit of providing assurances from a visible police presence
· Relocation would take place as soon as practically possible
The Chairman pointed out that the matter concerning transport arrangements for ward officers had been ongoing for quite some time. Mr Boothe stated that matters had now improved thanks to the introduction of new technology. It was now the case that officers were not required to return to base unless they had to deal with a prisoner or had finished their shift.
A Member asked if cover for ward officers was available in cases of maternity leave. Commander Boothe responded that the answer to this was ‘no’. The police had a budget for officers, and to employ extra resources to cover maternity leave would be an addition to the budget that was not available. If required, the Tasking Team could be utilised.
A co-opted member expressed concern over what he perceived as deficiencies in youth engagement with the police. Mr Boothe responded that this was an important issue, and the police were looking at what actions they could take in this respect. They would be looking at what had proved to be successful models in other boroughs and had been working with an independent advisory group. The police had also been engaging with Youth Council meetings. Assurance was provided to the Committee that there would be effective engagement with young people.
A Member queried if police office buildings in Bromley were going to be retained. This was because it was mentioned at the previous meeting, that as a result of a judicial review, the move to close police office buildings in the borough had been stopped. The Committee was informed that this matter was ongoing as the judicial review had been appealed.
Mention was made of the Knife and Serious Violence Action Plan. The Action Plan was being developed by the Safer Bromley Partnership. It was noted that boroughs would develop individual action plans. It was important to identify the benefits that could be provided by third sector organisations. The Chairman requested that when it was completed, the Action Plan should be presented to the PDS Committee.
The Investigations strand would be led by CID. The reactive side would be maintained, as would the emphasis on covert pro-active work. The CID would be based at Sutton and Bromley.
Mr Boothe updated Members concerning the Safeguarding strand. He referred to the ‘Sapphire’ Team which was the team that dealt with issues of rape, sexual abuse and child abuse. This was currently a team that was located centrally. Under the new arrangements, Mr Boothe would be taking over control locally. The Child Abuse Investigations Team would continue and would be better resourced. The ‘Missing’ people team would also continue. Safeguarding was now seen by the Mayor and the MET as a key area, and there would be Safeguarding Teams located in all three boroughs.
It was noted that Bromley’s policing priorities differed from MOPAC’s. Assurance was provided that the police would be managing Bromley’s local policing priorities. A co-opted member mentioned the link between gangs and CSE. Mr Boothe affirmed that this was an area that the police were looking at and would be adopting a holistic approach.
A co-opted member raised a question on behalf of MIND. If there was an elderly person wandering around in a confused state, which organisation would be responsible for that person. Mr Boothe clarified that if there was an emergency situation where there was a threat to life, then the police should be called. Longer term issues would be the responsibility of partners.
A Member asked who would be in charge of the Control Room, and it was clarified that this would be an Inspector. He then asked if it would be the case that in reality, the demand for resources would be drawn to Croydon. Commander Boothe responded that he had equal responsibility for three areas, and it would not be good practice to focus resources in just one borough.
Mr Boothe illustrated how tri-borough resources could be shared by citing an example of work that had been undertaken in Penge with respect to gang issues. Croydon officers had been used in Penge because of their expertise in dealing with gang related issues. The police were seeking to improve demand management. It was now the case that all ASB could be reported online, and the fact that there would be more police resourced to neighbourhood policing should reduce the number of calls to the police.
It was noted that the gang problem in Penge was current and not just historical. Mr Boothe stated that he was fully sighted with respect to the gang issue in Penge.
A Member sought clarity concerning what numbers should now be used to call the police under the new arrangements, and asked if the phone numbers of ward officers could be provided. She also said that a problem existed with ward officers not making call backs. Superintendent Knight advised that the police wanted to develop a localised ability to make call backs. A consistent approach was required. The local Safer Neighbourhood Team would retain their numbers, and the 101 service would remain. Online reporting could be used for ASB, and this information would be fed back to Neighbourhood Officers.
A Member queried if Neighbourhood Officers were informed of issues that were raised via the 101 service. Mr Boothe commented that there was a need for more joined up and integrated communications. It was hoped that the P&P Team would help to improve this area of operations.
The Chairman asked Mr Boothe if he would be able to attend future meetings. Mr Boothe responded that all meetings were currently under review to see who would be the best person to attend specific meetings. In terms of the PP&E PDS meeting, the police would be seeking a clear understanding of what the Committee required from police representatives. Generally speaking, the main police contact from a partnership perspective would be Superintendent Craig Knight. It may be the case that if in future the Committee was seeking an update on a strand other than Neighbourhood Management, then an alternate Superintendent may be assigned to attend.
The Chairman thanked Commander Boothe for attending the meeting and for answering questions from the Committee.
Superintendent Craig Knight continued with the police update after Mr Boothe had left. He informed the Committee that his background was in Neighbourhood Policing and that he felt that the new BCU structure would be a better operating model.
Mr Knight briefed the Committee with the following data which was all based on the rolling 12 months:
· ASB offences had risen by 34
· Burglary had risen by 4.9% which equated to 118 offences.
· Robbery had reduced by 11%
· Vehicle crime had risen by 1.7% which equated to 12 offences
· Knife Crime and Serious Violence offences had reduced by 4%
The rise in burglary offences was partly due to the criminal activities of organised crime gangs, but a number of arrests had now been made.
Mr Knight attributed the reduction of knife crime and serious violence to an increased use of stop and search for which he applauded officers. The number of offences relating to being in possession of a knife had increased, but this was because perpetrators were being caught due to the stop and search policy. The Superintendent explained how the use of a Section 60 order with respect to stop and search worked and also briefed the Committee about the use of ‘dispersal orders’.
The percentage of I calls responded to within the target time was 84%, which was one or two percent below the MET average. The probable cause of this was the size of the borough. In the rolling 12 months, Bromley police had received 10,860 I calls, which equated to 905 per month. During the rolling 12 month period,14,828 S calls had been logged. The response time for these calls indicated that 81% of calls had been answered within the target response time of 80%.
A co-opted member stated that she was aware of work that was ongoing to develop a stop and search policy group. Mr Knight appraised the Committee that similarly the police were working in consultation with a community group to refine stop and search policy. There was a possibility that in the future the community group would be allowed to observe stop and search operations.
The Committee received an update on the injunction that had been obtained against the Travellers subsequent to a recent incursion. The Court would decide whether or not the injunction could be extended as it was originally limited to three months. LBB and the police had been consulting on how to respond if the injunction was breached. The injunction did not apply to private land.
A Member enquired about an accident and subsequent fatality that had occurred recently in Bromley North. Mr Knight was unable to comment on this incident as it was being investigated.
A Member was concerned that Travellers were committing offences but not being arrested. Mr Knight assured that where evidence was forthcoming, Travellers would be arrested just the same as anyone else. In fact there had been some arrests in the previous three months. The Member asked if a report could be brought back to the Committee which detailed the arrests that had been made. It was the case that in many instances, individuals may report crimes, but would not wish to appear in court to provide evidence.
The Chairman requested that information be provided to the Committee before future meetings, so that Members had time to look at the information before the meeting. Mr Knight responded that this was not a problem, but it would help if the Chairman could clarify what information was required.
The Chairman thanked Superintendent Knight for updating the Committee, and for responding to questions.
RESOLVED that the police update is noted.