Minutes:
The police update was provided by Superintendent Craig Knight. The Chairman referenced the fact that he had requested statistical information from Mr Knight in advance of the meeting. The Chairman acknowledged that in this case he had probably not submitted the request in good enough time. Nevertheless, the Superintendent had provided a Headline Performance document on the morning of the meeting, and this had been disseminated to the Committee.
Mr Knight addressed the matter that had arisen at the previous meeting concerning fleet vehicles. He explained that due to tighter controls on car emissions in central London, Bromley police had lost their newest fleet of vehicles and had got their old fleet of vehicles back. Bromley police were not getting new vehicles; they were bound by fleet management rules. They were also looking at trying to obtain local sponsorship for some vehicles.
A Member suggested that due to the size of the Bromley Borough, Bromley needed cars more than inner London, and perhaps this was an argument that could be used with Fleet Management. Mr Knight stated that the argument had been made. It was clarified that the vehicle exchange was undertaken on a one to one exchange basis.
The Chairman asked what would happen in central London (in the tighter emission control areas) if they required reinforcements from older vehicles. It was noted that in case of emergencies, the police would have no choice other than to use the older vehicles. The Chairman enquired what the timescale was to resolve the matter. Mr Knight responded that the debate was ongoing and that a detailed paper had been submitted concerning the Bromley fleet. A response was expected in March 2019. It was noted that police vehicles normally had a lifespan of three years, and were then replaced.
A co-opted member enquired if Bromley police were short of vehicles. Mr Knight answered that it would be helpful if they could obtain 2/3 vehicles that could be dedicated to remoter areas. Bromley police were not lacking any response vehicles, what would be helpful was a few more vehicles that could be used by Safer Neighbourhood Teams. Conversations with potential sponsors were currently taking place. It was noted that vehicles pertaining to dog handlers fell under a different command.
Mr Knight provided an update with respect to police office buildings in Bromley. The Committee was saddened to hear that buildings were going to be closed and leases were not going to be renewed. Alternatives were being looked at such as sharing premises with the LFB. There was going to be a trial at Purley Fire Station in February to see if operating out of fire stations was workable. Sainsbury’s had offered to help with office space. The main police station in Bromley South would remain open.
A Member asked if a possible location could be community centres. Mr Knight said that all options would be looked at. Any premises used by the police would require 24/7 access and certain security measures would need to be in place. A discussion took place concerning how decisions were made to close buildings and what the specifications were for new buildings as in the past the specifications often changed. The sale of properties was taking place as part of the ongoing need to save revenue as it was still the case that £360m was required to be saved over the next three years. The sale of properties was funding new technology.
A Member asked if the police had considered a partnership with McDonalds in Penge. The franchise owner of the premises was very positive towards community groups. There were some rooms upstairs in the premises that could possibly be used. Mr Knight said that he would make an approach. The Chairman asked if there was a list of premises and their anticipated closure dates. Mr Knight said that there was, but it changed frequently. Mr Knight stated that Bromley police were now effectively looking for free space as they could not afford to pay rent.
A Member asked if any specific facilities would be required in a building used by the police. Mr Knight responded that technology had moved on, so the two main things required would be secure lockers and electric points for the charging of equipment.
Mr Knight then referred to the other matter that had arisen which was concerned with the arrest and prosecution of Travellers. He informed the Committee that there was a problem with accessing the relevant data and asked if the matter could be carried over to the next meeting. The problem was caused by the fact that when Travellers were arrested, they would be taken to different custody suites run by different commands. The Chairman agreed that the matter could be carried over to the next meeting. The Chairman asked Mr Knight to inform him if accessing the data continued to be problematic, as he would not wish to use up too much police time on an action that may not bear fruit that was proportionate to the effort involved in sourcing the data.
Burglary was rising in Bromley, but it was also rising across the country. In the rolling 12 months, burglary in Bromley had increased by 4%, which was in line with the MET average. Some of this increase was due to burglaries carried out by foreign criminal gangs during the spring and summer periods; arrests had been made, but the trend was still rising. Additionally, there had been a lot of smaller scale burglaries in the north of the borough.
Mr Knight informed the Committee that there would be two ANPR operations undertaken over the next 4 weeks, one would be overt and one would be covert. He would be happy to report back on the results of the operations. Operation ‘Be Safe’ (burglary initiative) would coincide with the winter nights. Social media would be used to increase the awareness of the public to burglary and crime prevention. Mr Knight informed the Committee that he had recently been appointed as the Strategic Lead for burglary in the south area.
It was noted that the number of offences for non-domestic violence was increasing. Mr Knight said that a greater number of arrests had been made for various public order, weapons and drug offences—this was because a greater number of uniformed officers had been placed on the streets.
The Committee was briefed that over the next six months, there would be an increase in the number of stop and search operations in an attempt to reduce knife crime and other serious violence offences.
The Superintendent mentioned the response times for ‘I’ and ‘S’ calls. ‘I’ calls were the most urgent calls that required a response within 15 minutes. There had been a dip in hitting this target across the MET, and also in Bromley. This had not been helped because of Bromley’s geography. The Chairman pointed out that this issue had been raised in the Tri-Borough discussions. Mr Knight assured that the problem was not a serious one. The performance for the response to S calls was rising.
Mr Knight expressed the view that Bromley was still a safe borough. A Member responded and questioned the validity of this assertion based on the fact that in the Penge, Anerley and Crystal Palace Wards, it was not uncommon for there to be attacks using knives, acid and firearms. He was concerned that there was a not a proper understanding of the borough in that when assertions were made with respect to safety, certain problem wards in Bromley were not being properly taken into consideration.
Mr Knight maintained that Bromley was still probably the safest borough in London but he was aware that certain wards had problems unique to them. He said that the wards where there were issues with gangs and other serious violence had seen extra resources deployed. LBB had previously been concerned that resources would be removed from Bromley to deal with issues in Croydon, but Mr Knight said that in fact the reverse was happening. Resources were being deployed from Croydon and Sutton to deal with crime in Bromley.
A Member also raised the issue of young people being placed in Penge from Lewisham (for emergency housing) when in some cases they belonged to a rival gang. He asked if Mr Knight had any control over this, and Mr Knight responded that he did raise objections, but it was a matter that he was not able to control.
A Member enquired about the data that pertained to low level crime in the borough. It was explained that this related to low level offences such as noisy neighbours, house parties, people being drunk, and kids playing around. It was a deliberately broad classification and hard to break down further.
Mr Knight stated that police satisfaction was high in Bromley, and that he intended to keep it that way. His focus would be on reducing priority crimes such as violence with injury, burglary and other high harm crimes like sexual offences. The number of reported sexual offences was rising because people now had more confidence to report such incidences. Some of the reporting of sexual offences was historic. As a consequence of this, more resources had to be allocated to safeguarding.
There was a discussion around the issue of perception, and the allocation of resources. Mr Knight explained that he had to allocate officers to where crimes were being committed and so this would mean that in some cases officers would not always be able to attend community meetings. A discussion also took place about the potential for a conflict of priorities for the police, as it seemed that different priorities were emanating from diverse sources. Mr Knight responded that the police clearly had a duty to deal with crime related to Violence with Injury, Burglary, Safeguarding and Terrorism. However in terms of local priorities the focus was likely to be on VWI, Burglary, and the priorities set by the Local Ward Panels.
A Member raised the matter of Duty Officer cover after being informed when he attended a fire at a bus garage recently that no Duty Officer was available at that time. Mr Knight explained about the number of Duty Officers available, and how their work was allocated.
A Member asked if a breakdown of the burglary figures could be provided and it was noted that these were primarily residential burglaries. A question was also asked about the definition of a firearm and it was clarified that this definition would apply to any section 5 weapon and would include CS Gas canisters. It was explained that the definition of ‘knife crime’ would include crimes where the use of a knife was threatened even if it was not seen.
Mr Knight gave an explanation of the work and shift patterns of Ward Officers.
The Chair of BYC (Bromley Youth Council) had attended the BYC conference that had been focused on Gangs. He said that the feedback that he had received from young people was that the police were not listening or engaging with them properly. They felt that the police were not there for them and not engaging with them in schools. He asked what could be done to change this. Mr Knight answered that there had been a significant investment in Schools Officers, and that the number of Schools Officers was going to increase in the south area from 22 to 34. Additionally, £150k was going to be invested in a trial pilot to further engage with young people, and it was hoped that by the end of the pilot, young people would be able to be involved in stop and search operations. The Chairman asked if Cameron could be invited to School Officers briefing meetings and Mr Knight said that he would arrange this.
The Chairman thanked Mr Knight for attending the meeting. He suggested that he meet with Mr Knight to discuss the format of pre-written information/data going forward. Mr Knight stated that he wanted to use a standardised format. Members were free to write to the Chairman if they wanted to raise any further questions outside of the meeting.
RESOLVED that:
1) The police update is noted.
2) The matter regarding the data for the arrest and prosecution of Travellers be deferred to the January meeting.
3) Superintendent Knight would invite Cameron Ward to future School Officers’ meetings.
4) The Chairman and Mr Knight would meet up at some point to discuss how the police could provide pre-written information for the PDS Committee going forward.