Minutes:
The police had submitted a PowerPoint presentation in advance of the meeting.
The document was called, ‘Bromley ASB and Crime Analysis’— the data was accurate as at January 2019.
The PowerPoint had been disseminated to Members previously so that they had the opportunity to read the information and subsequently ask any questions that they deemed appropriate at the meeting.
The police had also been requested to provide an update on Neighbourhood Policing and on the BCU (Basic Command Unit) tri-borough merger.
The police update was given by Chief Inspector Craig Knight and Superintendent Colin Carswell.
A discussion took place concerning the definitions of residential and non-residential burglaries. It was noted that if a garage was attached to a house, then if the garage was burgled, it would be classed as a residential burglary. If a garage was not directly attached to a house, any burglary that took place in the garage would be classed as non-residential.
An explanation of the term ‘sanctions detection’ was provided. The term applied to any situation where an individual entered the criminal justice system, even if no further action was being taken. The Chairman expressed some concern around the ratio of sanction detections to the number of crimes committed in Bromley. Over the last 12 weeks, the total number of offences committed in Bromley were 5964, and the number of sanction detections for the same period was 500. The Chairman was concerned because this figure was below 10% (actually 8.4%). This seemed to be a London wide issue.
Superintendent Carswell acknowledged that the MET had lost ground, but they were seeking to consolidate and improve.
A Member asked if it was true that detectives were resigning because they were being forced to relocate to North London. Mr Carswell responded that this was not wholly correct. It was the case that the police had to restructure because they were under-resourced in terms of detectives working in North London. Wherever possible, the police had asked officers to consider voluntary relocation. It was the case however, that 12 detectives had been compulsorily transferred to North London. This had resulted in some detectives moving to Surrey and Kent police. It was still the case that in south London the occupancy rate was still over 100%.
A Member queried how this was the case, given the fact that not so long ago, Inspector Gary Byfield had told the PP&E PDS Committee that the police were understaffed by 16 detectives. The Chief Inspector stated that the structure of the CID had changed since the statement had been made by Inspector Byfield, and that this may account for the seeming anomaly in the statistics. The Chief Inspector promised to look into the matter and seek clarification. Members were informed that ‘Response Officers’ would deal with a wide variety of offences from start to finish, whilst CID would focus on more serious and complex crimes.
A Member mentioned that there had been a spate of burglaries recently in Biggin Hill, but there seemed to be very little follow up. He asked for an explanation of the follow up procedure.
The Chief Inspector explained that call handlers were trained to identify possible forensic leads when speaking to the public after a burglary had transpired. Sometimes they could ask the member of the public to take pictures of the crime scene on their mobile phones. The screening process was based on best practice and would determine whether or not an officer would be sent to the scene of the crime. The process would also cover screening for possible traces of DNA. Forensic work would be undertaken by specially trained officers. A possible source of DNA could be a cigarette butt.
A discussion took place concerning the benefits of Met Trace. The introduction of Met Trace had proved highly successful.
A Member asked if the correct levels of Ward Officers and PCSOs were being maintained across all of the wards. It was confirmed that full compliments of officers were being maintained, apart from the fact that currently there was not a Ward Officer located in the Darwin Ward. A co-opted member pointed out that the current MOPAC allocation of funding did not provide any additional resource specifically for policing town centres. She expressed the view that the public were missing community policing in towns. She would be contacting MOPAC to seek the appropriate extra resources to fund this.
Superintendent Carswell highlighted that a ‘taskable asset’ could be used where appropriate in the future, this was currently being strengthened.
A Member asked if the police were still committed to attending Ward Panel meetings, as in his ward the attendance had been poor, despite the fact that the meetings were planned three months in advance. Mr Carswell felt that better dialogue should take place with the Ward Panel Chairman. He stated that the police should be well represented at the meetings, preferably with a warranted officer being present, and police representatives should not turn up unprepared for Ward Panel meetings.
Mr Carswell emphasised the need for police officers to have a clear brief. He felt that in basic terms the brief should be to reduce harm, reduce demand and to increase confidence. He asked his police teams to focus on three primary areas:
1. The reduction of violence
2. Safeguarding
3. A local priority
A discussion took place regarding the closure of existing police buildings, and the matter of re-locating into new police hubs. A Member expressed concern about the possible closure of the Copperfield police building in Penge. It was noted that the lease on this building had expired 14 months ago. The police were still paying rent for the premises and had not been asked to leave yet. If they were going to be asked to vacate the premises in the near future, then it was the case that three new potential sites were under consideration.
With respect to the location of police hubs, it was a requirement that 25% of any ward could be accessed via a 20 minute walk from any given hub. This had currently been achieved in 67% of cases. A Member expressed the view that it was foolish to sell a building if a new location had not been sourced. Mr Carswell stated that he had written business cases in an attempt to save the current police buildings in Biggin Hill and St Mary Cray, as it was difficult to source alternatives.
It was noted that the BCU would go live on Monday, February 4th, and preparations for this were going well. The Chief Inspector commented that the police had transferred over 1400 staff into one command team, and this was remarkable. It was expected that the public would see a better service, or at the least, they would not notice any difference. The MET had remained committed to frontline services and had maintained the number of frontline officers at 31,000.
A Member asked if they could be provided with a new police organisational chart. The Chairman made a final comment that what the public were seeking was a visible police presence.
RESOLVED that
1) Chief Inspector Knight look into the issue of conflicting information being provided concerning the number of detectives in south London, and provide clarification to the Committee
2) The police provide a new organisational chart to members of the Committee.
Post Meeting Note:
The new police organisational chart was disseminated on 12th February 2019