Agenda item

To consider and note the current performance of the partnership for 2021/22 and the CCTV performance report for 2021.

Members considered the Community Safety Partnership presented by Councillor Lynn.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Hay noted that the Community Safety Partnership funding originally came via the County Council from Central government but that once the Police and Crime Commissioner was created it was delivered through them. She asked why no funding had been received from them from April to December 2021? Councillor Lynn explained that they had not received any funding as it was awarded on a year-by-year agreement and when the last commissioner finished his term the funding also stopped, which was due to the election and the appointment of a new commissioner. He stated that the new commissioner undertook many consultations to decide on his strategy going forward and that funding was lost during this period as they were told it was changing.  Councillor Lynn explained that once they had set out the new Local Plan they had put a new agreement in place to offer funding on a three yearly period which covers his term of office. Councillor Hay queried that if Fenland District Council did not have the funding, then no work must have taken place to which Councillor Lynn informed her was not the case. Councillor Hay asked why they had not insisted on the funding being backdated to cover this period? Dan Horn informed her that they had made representations prior to the new funding agreement and that this was essentially the point that had been made. He explained that they had been able to fund the work from residual reserves to cover the gap in costs.

·         Councillor Hay stated that the Police and Crime Commissioner is elected every 4 years and raised concern that should it be a different person elected the Council would lose funding again. Councillor Lynn agreed that this would be the case. Councillor Hay suggested that they should be making representations to suggest that funding be carried over whenever a new commissioner takes office so that they have time to look at the details without Fenland losing out. Dan Horn responded that they would need to be making representations like last time but that they were not persuasive enough last time. Councillor Hay expressed the view that if this occurred again and further funding was held back then this would need to be made known to the general public.

·         Councillor Hay referred to page six of the report where it mentions talking to sports clubs linked to Polish schools. She queried whether there were any Polish schools in the area?  Dan Horn explained that there was not a Polish school but there was a Saturday school held at the Rosmini centre and that there was a similar provision in Huntingdon. Councillor Hay requested that they make this clear in the future.

·         Councillor Hay stated that there were partners RAG rated red but that there was no narrative in there to explain why. Dan Horn explained that this area was still incomplete which was why it was rated red and informed her that they would come back with a timescale on when they are likely to complete this area. Councillor Hay made the point that there were also no RAG ratings against drug and alcohol. Dan Horn informed the panel that this was an oversight in terms of this rating and explained that the first should be green and the next two amber.

·         Councillor Hay referred to the fact that CCTV in Fenland had merged with Peterborough City Council in January 2020, but Chatteris Town Council did not feel like they were getting value for money, with there being 93 incidents with only 1 arrest or fine. She pointed out that this seemed to be a low number compared to the number of incidents. Aarron Locks explained that the number of cameras does not always relate to the number of incidents as it is more to do with the environment they are in. He stated that Chatteris had one of the lowest crime rates in the area and that in comparison to March it was lower due to the lack of nightlife. Aarron Locks explained that a lot of incidents caught in Chatteris were dealt with differently due to their nature and did not lead to arrests. Councillor Hay made the point that there had been incidents of criminal damage and drug dealing in certain areas and asked who was responsible for the cameras being placed in the correct areas? Aarron Locks responded that the CCTV provide lots of evidence to find and educate perpetrators and that the age and offences did not constitute arrest. He explained that old cameras were not easy to redeploy but that new cameras were moveable and in the future they can respond quickly to new developing trends. Councillor Hay asked who would pay for the cameras? Aarron Locks explained that this would be discussed with partners when necessary but that in Peterborough they had been funded by Peterborough City Council. Councillor Mason thanked them for the explanation as the figures had been a worry at face value.

·         Councillor Miscandlon expressed his concern around e-scooters and their prevalence in the market towns. He stated that there was currently a pilot scheme in Cambridge City but that they were illegal to use outside of this area and made the point that it was easy to spot them on CCTV and asked what the Police were doing about the issue. Andy Morris agreed with Councillor Miscandlon’s comments and that they had also been an issue in Peterborough. He stated that they were working with educating retailers to make them accountable as they are illegal unless used in private spaces, but retailers were currently failing to make this known. Andy Morris informed members that they had a team who were proactively focusing their attention on this and explained that some people will not know that they are illegal, with e-scooters being seized where necessary if deemed proportionate. He made the point that the issue was not going away and that they needed to find a balance of education and punitive action. Andy Morris explained that if they put up posts every day regarding e-scooters it gives the impression that this is their only focus which so this was being avoided.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that most riders were school children and asked whether they would consider going into schools and educate them as it was an issue that needed serious consideration as there had already been 16 deaths and around 500 accidents. Andy Morris responded that he would take the recommendation on board and that they do have educators that already visit schools. He explained that they had recently obtained the capacity to do proactive work around issues affecting the public and have officers planning on tackling these issues. Andy Morris stated that people are being prosecuted were appropriate and that he would get the data on the number of prosecutions, referrals and education programmes for the panel.

·         Councillor Yeulett acknowledged the effect of Covid on implementing plans and measures for the Police and asked what they were seeing regarding domestic abuse rates and whether there was an upwards trend, questioned what they were doing to prevent and challenge these issues. He recognised that street drinking in Wisbech had decreased and asked whether they had a plan to help keep it that way and build on the already decreasing problem? Regarding domestic violence, Councillor Yeulett asked whether there was a strategy in place and a team focusing on that and whether they were educating people on how to recognise it. Andy Morris explained that he could not provide a response regarding domestic violence as they were not a response team who dealt with those issues, it was however a force priority to reduce domestic violence and that they had a vulnerability focus department. Councillor Yeulett asked who was responsible for taking action in this area? Andy Morris explained that it was a Police responsibility but that they did not respond directly to 999 calls as there are specialist teams for these circumstances. He explained that every domestic incident must be reviewed and signed off by a supervisor and he could not answer whether the figures were increasing or decreasing as they did not have that data. Councillor Yeulett asked where the link with County was and how the schemes here were helping and preventing cases of domestic abuse? Dan Horn responded that the Community Safety Partnership brought all work together and allowed them to ask the country wide board what help is needed on a local level. He stated that the actions were set out in the action plan and one example of Fenland work in this area was the Domestic Abuse Housing Accreditation which was working with the Housing Options Team and training them to ensure that any resident presenting as a victim of abuse would be dealt with appropriately.

·         Councillor Yeulett asked whether they had a handle on the volume of domestic abuse and questioned whether they were making a difference and if there were any statistics to show this was happening. Dan Horn responded that he would take this away and provide figures around the trends. He stated that they had received a presentation on familial domestic abuse and that Fenland had been highlighted as a pinch point and that he would provide the trends from this.

·         Councillor Yeulett reiterated that street drinking was down and asked how they would keep it that way? Councillor Lynn agreed that street drinking had decreased but explained that they were unsure about how much of this was due to Covid as it goes down during the Winter period anyway. Andy Morris explained that they were taking a partnership approach to look at why people were on the streets, which he had brought with him from his time in Peterborough, and that they are looking at providing support and looking at rehabilitative measures before taking punitive action. He stated that there were 46 people on the Peterborough scheme and only 4 refused any help and in these cases, they would be banned from the Town Centres. Councillor Yeulett commented that it was currently a very good base to work from as offences were low at the moment.

·         Councillor Purser expressed the view that he had witnessed an alarming amount of antisocial driving with people driving too fast late at night and was concerned that someone might get hurt. He asked whether there was a possibility of a Police presence to help reduce the risk as it was always too late by the time it was reported. Andy Morris responded that this fits in line with Vision Zero, if specific details of where and when it was occurring were provided and it was blatantly clear then they could send someone out the next day to deal with it. He encouraged the reporting of any instances and was happy to give his personal details and have conversations with those people but explained that there may be reasons for not being able to be present or deal with the offence. Councillor Purser stated that he had seen the offences himself and that those showing off was a worry. He reiterated that having an officer or car there will deter people from committing the offence in the first place. Andy Morris explained that the positive news was that from the start of January they were up to full capacity and they now have the ability to start to undertake this work. He stated that he could check the work shift patterns and when people are working late shifts he could feed back to focus on these areas.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that they now had a considerable amount of data regarding speeding with instances of people speeding up to 105 MPH. He explained that the speed cameras do not record the registration numbers, only speeds and times, although caveating that some speeding may be from blue light vehicles on occasion. Councillor Miscandlon explained that the Police and Crime Commissioner had been promising days of action where the appropriate paperwork would be issued to those speeding and noted that he could arrange for the data to be sent to the Police if they had not already seen it. Andy Morris explained that they can analyse this data, look at key times and direct teams to work at those times and places. He stated that new officers had been undertaking their initial induction and had received specific training around neighbourhood policing so he expected to begin to see tangible results that he could share with the panel in future in this area.  Councillor Miscandlon stated that if he provided his details they would get the data to him.

·         Councillor Connor made the point that there had been a meeting a few months ago where a promise of a few days of action were made and asked whether they could chase up this up to see where they stood regarding this? Councillor Miscandlon stated that he was with them the previous day and that he had chased this up. Andy Morris responded that he would find out when the days were and confirmed that Councillors would be allowed to attend on the day. Councillor Mason made the point that they had spent a lot of time and money on this and that all that was needed was the support for the end product.

·         Councillor Booth made the point that road safety had been raised by the Overview and Scrutiny Panel for a number of years and asked whether the action plan was effectively saying that road safety is now the remit of community groups. He also pointed out that in the previous year this had been placed on the action plan as a priority area but it seemed to have dropped off which was a disappointment. Dan Horn responded that, regarding the Road Safety Partnership, officers from Cambridgeshire County Council had come before the panel a year ago to detail the Vision Zero Strategy that was being launched at the time. He explained that the Council had asked the Road Safety Partnership where they needed support from a Community Safety Partnership perspective and a lot of focus had been around assisting with the recruitment of volunteers, support for the Vision Zero scheme in Fenland had been offered and if there was a gap where support was required. Dan Horn said that it was an area they could take away and revisit if it remained a real concern and they could come back and show what progress there had been as a Vision Zero partnership if they so wished. Councillor Booth welcomed this and stated that the communities that he represented also see it as a problem and that Fenland was in the top 3 for fatalities amongst young drivers which was an issue that needed to be addressed. He said that it was unfortunate that the assistance from the Police had reduced on this matter due to more urgent issues in the past few years. Councillor Booth explained that it did not look like they were getting more Police resources for these community-based issues, acknowledging that some issues were due to Covid which had stopped the Community Speed Watch for a while but expressed his concern that they did not seem to be moving forward with this issue which he believed to be an urgent issue.

·         Councillor Count asked whether the Road Safety Partnership made any bids for funding as Cambridgeshire County Council had £454,000 that had been specifically allocated to new scheme development and that they had predicted that they would not have spent any of this by April 2022. He had been informed that this was because the Combined Authority and the Greater Cambridge Partnership had not approached them with any new schemes so there had been no use for the money and asked why this money had not been used on safety measures as Cambridgeshire County Council are responsible for highways safety, but they had never received a response back. Dan Horn explained that the relationship with county wide partnership for road safety is that they ask where they need support and he could take back the feedback and enquire as to whether there are plans for Fenland in relation to that which fits in with the Vision Zero action plan.

·         Councillor Wicks asked what action had been undertaken in primary schools as children did not like speeding and had organised their own march previously which lasted 2 years before Police time was taken elsewhere. He questioned where the primary school engagement was going to come from and what engagement there was with youth at clubs and events? Andy Morris explained that the neighbourhood change programme had hurt resources and they now only had 3 officers covering Fenland. He stated that they used to spend significant time on this area and that it was hard to admit they did not have the necessary resources as he was a big believer in social mobility. Andy Morris stated that he wanted to incorporate a model to turn visions of Police on their head by building relationships with the Police and younger people. He explained that the role of a Police Officer was more than just enforcement and that he wanted to change mindsets of what it means to be an officer, with other areas having moved forward like this and he wants this to be replicated across the market towns.

·         Councillor Wicks asked how they were progressing with regards to modified cars and noisy exhausts? Andy Morris explained that the monitoring equipment was shared between Fenland and Peterborough but that they try to keep it in Fenland and use it as much as possible. He stated that monitoring is intelligence led and that they focus their attention on specific problems at specific locations.

·         Councillor Booth stated that he had been informed that the Police and Crime Commissioner had agreed to fund a problem-solving coordinator for Fenland for 3 years to enhance the work of the safety partnership. He asked how they were going to recruit to that and noted that there would also be a pot of funds for community schemes and asked how they would ensure that Fenland would get their fair share of that? Dan Horn confirmed that they had received funding for the next three years and that part of that had been put aside to recruit to the role. Regarding the additional fund, he informed the panel that they had already set up a working party to look at this, but they were still awaiting final guidance around the use of the funds. Councillor Booth reminded them that they should engage with Town and Parish Councils as they may have links to groups and organisations that could help with certain schemes. He also stated that they would benefit from an increased presence at events such as the Golden Age Fairs as they could receive feedback from communities on what they think the priorities are. Dan Horn accepted the feedback and he would take engaging with Town and Parish Councils back after the meeting. Councillor Lynn noted that they were waiting on confirmation of how the fund could be used and committed to sharing the information with the panel when provided.

·         Councillor Count referred the previous point that exhaust noise was intelligent led and explained that a resident had reported an incident and felt that he was not looked after. He explained that the registration number had been given and asked whether they could go to the house and investigate this in that circumstance or what the normal process was. Andy Morris noted that the response from the Police has to be proportionate and that going to the house would not be unreasonable if it was causing distress. As for the response at the time, he explained that he could only assume that they did not have the officers to respond to it. Andy Morris informed the panel that if the correct team was on duty people are likely to get a response but if they are not then there would be no response as the incident is of low threat, harm and risk. He did expect the team to be reviewing calls and seeing if there are any ways they can help retroactively when they are on duty. Andy Morris explained that the offence needs to take place on the road but that they can go and talk to them about it if reported, which may not be the response that they wanted, it gives people confidence in calling again and provides a response. Councillor Count thanked Andy Morris and stated that continued reporting of the persistent offender might get a response eventually.

·         Councillor Count informed the attendees that in the previous year the County Council had introduced a community capital scheme of 5 million pounds to be used across the whole of the County, with the brief being fairly open as to what it could be used for and was open to any scheme that would improve people’s lives. He stated that there should be a new community capital fund pot approved shortly but that the criteria might change. He informed the attendees that this would be good to keep in mind when putting their bids together.

·         Councillor Booth stated that lots of work had taken place with younger people regarding loan sharks and asked whether they are actively targeted by loan sharks and why they were looking at that age group. Dan Horn explained that there was a rationale behind this and that the funding had been provided from a bid to the illegal money lending team. He explained that the national team thought engagement through schools would be a good route as they take this information home and share it with their families and it also allows them to be aware of the issue when they get older in later years. Councillor Lynn made the point that there had been lots of publicity and that lots of people knew the work was going on which helped raise the profile.

·         Councillor Booth stated that they were working with a new credit union and asked what had happened to the old arrangement with Rainbow? Dan Horn informed the panel that Rainbow was no longer around and so they needed to find a new company to work with.

The Community Safety Partnership report was noted for information.