Agenda item

Attention was drawn to the document that outlined the progress being made with respect to Priority 1 of the SBP Strategy, which was ‘Safer Neighbourhoods’. The Assistant Director noted that with respect to steps taken to resolve ASB issues, a significant contribution had been made from the LFB, and this would be noted in future updates.

The Assistant Director referred to the sterling work that was being undertaken by the Safer Neighbourhood Anti-Social Behaviour Team. The team had been collaboratively pushing back on ASB. The Assistant Director asked RSLs to exercise their duties and powers (with respect to ASB) initially. This was to avoid the situation whereby the public contacted the Council with issues in the first instance when they could be dealt with by the RSLs under their existing powers. 

The Tenancy Specialist Manager (Clarion Housing)  pointed out that sometimes it was difficult to differentiate between ASB issues and criminal ones and on where the responsibilities of registered social landlords began and ended. Because of this, it was important that partners worked together, adopting a multi-agency approach in dealing with ASB and other issues.

The Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation gave an update on ‘community impact days’ stating that three of these had taken place in recent months. One of these would take place each month coordinated by the LBB Public Protection Department and the Community Safety Team. The Council was supported by various partner organisations in this. Residents appreciated the visibility of the partnership approach. Residents felt encouraged when they witnessed this visible multi agency approach and this in turn inspired confidence in the community.

An update with respect to crimes against the elderly and the vulnerable, scams and doorstep crime was given. It was anticipated that the work of Trading Standards in this regard would recommence fully once  COVID restrictions were ended. 

The Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation referenced Covid enforcement under ‘Section 5’. 

It was noted that the ‘delta variant’ of COVID had delayed the country’s movement on to the next level. Because of this it was still the case that the hospitality sector had to follow the relevant guidelines with respect to hospitality provision and this was an area that would be enforced by Public Protection. It was felt at the moment that many in the hospitality sector were not following the guidelines particularly well, but there was no real data at the moment available to confirm this. As it was, much work would still be needed to be done until the end of July.

Councillor Bance noted that it had been decided not to issue CPNs to homeless people who were begging, which in genuine cases appeared to be the right approach. However, there were incidences in Bromley High Street where people were not genuinely homeless and they were begging aggressively and generally causing a nuisance of themselves. She asked why this was not being picked up and dealt with; she asked that the matter be given higher priority in terms of enforcement and action.

Councillor Bance also made reference to a pub in the Penge area where there were issues with the premises not being managed properly and the landlord had not lived up to the promises that he had made to improve the establishment. She asked if she would be able to put the pub on a list for a visit and the answer to this was in the affirmative. The Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation said that it would be good to undertake a visit and speak to the licence holder. Councillor Bance agreed to provide the relevant details to the Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation. All members of the Board were encouraged to provide any relevant information or intelligence, as intelligence led operations were the most effective. 

The police acknowledged the fact that in many cases, the people on the street were not genuine homeless people that had fallen on hard times, but that in many cases they were on the street purely for the purposes of begging, and often in an aggressive manner. In these cases, CPNs would be issued. It was also noted that the police had the use of translation services if these were required.

The LBB Head of Early Intervention and Family Support encouraged colleagues from across partner agencies to think about intervening earlier before problems and issues faced by families became entrenched… either a referral to Early Intervention and Family Support (EIFS), Bromley Children’s’ Project or to complete their own assessment of needs and log a ‘CAF’ (Children’s Assessment Framework) if a multi-agency response would benefit the family.

She explained that very few referrals had been made to EIFS from partners attending SBPB. A limited number of referrals were received from some parts of the Health landscape, but these were low numbers and could be improved.  The biggest challenge was the consent issue with partners believing that referrals to CSC (Children’s Services) did not need consent (true but not best practice), whereas a referral to EIFS did need consent which required a conversation with the family concerned.

Resultantly, many referrals to MASH were subsequently “NFA’d”… as not reaching the threshold for a statutory intervention and the referring agency then not speaking to the family afterwards to suggest Bromley Children’s’ Project if they were facing challenges and needed support – often because they did not want the family to know they referred to CSC (Children’s Social Care). This was a common ‘falling through the net’ issue.

The Head of Early Intervention and Family Support said that she was very happy to be contacted by colleagues, to arrange for one of her team managers to deliver bespoke training and to help colleagues understand the offer for families.  If partners got it  right early, then the pressure on MASH and ultimately CSC would reduce and fewer children would face the prospect of a statutory intervention, and more importantly, families would develop resilience and strategies to function in a safer, happier and more productive way, and hopefully this would reduce the potential number of young people heading towards YOS, Police, ASB, YJB, and the risks of gang affiliation/ CCE/ CSE etc.

The Assistant Director for Public Protection and Enforcement suggested that the Head of Early Intervention and Family Support draft a briefing on this for Board members which could be presented at the next meeting. It was hoped that in this way the process could be fully explained and the number of referrals increased.

RESOLVED that:

1) The contribution from the LFB would be noted in future updates.

2) RSLs should endeavour as far as possible to deal with ASB in the first instance by using their own powers.

3) Councillor Bance would refer a pub in the Penge area to the Head of Trading Standards and Commercial Regulation.

4) The police would issue CPNs as appropriate when dealing with aggressive begging in Bromley High Street. 

5) The LBB Head of Early Intervention and Family Support would update the Board in matters with respect to referrals where more support and referral generation to early intervention services was required.