Meeting documents

• (Attachment: 1)Minutes

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 5th March 2015 be approved as a correct record.

Committee Members: Councillors N.D. Harrison, D. Powell, P. Shillinglaw and J.M. Stephenson.

Other Members: Councillors J. Durrant and M.J. Selby.

County Councillors: Councillor B. Gardner.
 

None.

• (Attachment: 2)COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP ANNUAL SCRUTINY REPORT (413K/bytes)

The Chairman welcomed all present Members, Officers and guests to the meeting.

As part of its statutory requirement to annually scrutinise the decisions and actions taken in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions, the Committee had been provided with a Community Safety Plan update report which was set out in two parts. Part A identified achievements against the Borough-specific priorities agreed by the Reigate and Banstead Community Safety Partnership (CSP) for 2014-15. Part B related to the merging of the Reigate and Banstead CSP with the Tandridge and Mole Valley CSPs to form a combined East Surrey CSP which had taken place in 2014. Part B identified the progress achieved by the East Surrey CSP since its inaugural meeting in July 2014, and the priorities agreed for 2015-16.

Members had received the report in advance of the meeting and nine Advance Questions on five themes had been submitted. The responses to these questions had been circulated to Committee Members prior to the meeting, and were tabled at the meeting.

Peter Tonge, Environmental Health & Community Safety Manager, introduced the report to the meeting and highlighted the following:

• The ongoing loss of Government funding and reductions in the budgets of responsible authorities;
• Changes in legislation and national restructuring which had altered the responsible authorities included in the Partnership;
• The introduction of new legislation focussed on protecting victims from Antisocial Behaviour and Domestic Abuse, and the Partnership’s response to these.

Also present to respond to the Committee’s questions were the Council’s Community Safety Manager Debbie Stitt, County Councillor Kay Hammond (Cabinet Associate for Fire and Police Services) and Borough Inspector Angie Austin representing Surrey Police.

Comments were made and further questions posed regarding the following:

• The Joint Enforcement Team (JET) pilot. It was noted that the Surrey Enforcement JET Governance Board was currently considering the evaluation of the pilot and that, were the JET to be continued, the extension of JET Officers’ working hours would be considered. The Committee noted that all of the work previously carried out by Borough Enforcement Officers was still being done, but in some instances by more appropriately placed Officers.
• Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) priorities. The Committee noted that the JET and the Reigate & Banstead CIAG took a zero-tolerance and victim-centred approach which mirrored and supported that of the PCC. The Committee noted that a neighbourhood review in 2014 had aimed to increase visible street policing by reducing back office functions.
• Police communication with residents. Borough Inspector Angie Austin informed the Committee that this was done increasingly through social media as this had a proven high impact, as well as through leafleting and information provided on the Surrey Police website. It was noted that Police Officers still attended public meetings where these were well attended. The Committee noted that resident confidence in Surrey Police was at a year to date average of 56.6%, and that Borough Inspector Angie Austin hoped to improve the communication of results achieved.
• Progress against 2014-15 Reigate and Banstead CSP priorities:
  • Reducing Anti-Social Behaviour. The Committee noted that Raven Housing Trust attended the monthly meetings of the Community Incident Action Group (CIAG) and were generally felt by Surrey Police and Community Safety Officers to engage well and to attend promptly to any incidents brought before this Group. It was noted that an increase in violence was in line with county- and country-wide figures, but that alcohol related incidents had been decreasing partly through a focus on licensing.
  • Noise complaints. It was noted that noise complaints had increased by 38% compared to the previous year, and the reasons behind this were unclear. It was suggested that increased awareness of the JET team may have led to more regular reporting. The Committee noted that Officers were currently working to map these complaints in more detail, and could provide further detail outside of the meeting. The Committee further noted that complaints about fireworks had increased, and it was suggested that this be the subject of a communications campaign in the relevant period.
  • Tackling substance misuse. The Committee noted that substance misuse represented a significant portion of Public Health’s annual budget. It was noted that substance misuse was dealt with in many different ways and by different agencies, including the Police and the East Surrey Substance Misuse Group. It was noted that awareness campaigns, for example regarding alcohol misuse, were using more innovative methods including social media to reach a wider audience.
  • Tackling Domestic Abuse. The Committee noted that valuable partnership work was undertaken with the East Surrey Domestic Abuse Service and also with the South East Surrey Family Support Team.
  • The Committee were pleased to note that all of the targets for 2014-15 had been achieved. It was noted that the PCC had begun to move away from setting quantitative targets.
• Child sexual exploitation. The Committee noted that there was a low threat of child sexual exploitation within the borough, and that the Council had recently introduced new safeguarding arrangements which reflected the high priority given to safeguarding in all forms.
• East Surrey CSP priorities for 2015-16:
  • The Committee expressed concern about the removal of ‘reducing domestic burglary’ as a priority for 2015-16. It was noted that at an operational level, this continued to be a high priority for Surrey Police.
  • The Committee suggested that cyber fraud be considered as a future focus for the Community Safety Partnership.
• Potential changes in 2015-16:
  • CCTV Review. The Committee noted that a recommendation was expected to be taken to the Executive after the election in May 2015. It was noted that a wholesale removal of the borough’s CCTV cameras would not be proposed, and that cameras would be retained where evidence demonstrated a necessity. The Committee noted that options including business contributions were also being explored, and that the East Surrey CSP had been asked to consider requesting a Surrey-wide network review in order to facilitate more significant investment in new technology.

 The Chairman thanked the Officers and guests for their contribution and attendance.

RESOLVED that the comments of the Committee on the priorities identified by the East Surrey Community Safety Partnership for 2015/16 be referred to the Community Safety Partnership for their consideration.

• (Attachment: 3)OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT 2014/15 (257K/bytes)

Councillor B.A. Stead presented his Annual Report on the activity of the Committee during 2014/15. The report concluded that this activity, whilst maintaining a streamlined approach which had been appropriate to the ongoing economic pressures facing the Council, had added great value.

The Committee noted that attendance had generally been lower in 2014/15 than in previous years. The Committee noted that further information relating to attendance would be added to the Annual Report.

The Committee expressed its thanks to Councillor Stead for his Chairmanship throughout 2014/15. The Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive were also thanked by the Committee for their regular attendance at its meetings.

RECOMMENDED that the Committee’s Annual Report for 2014/15 be noted.
 

It was reported that there were no items arising from the Executive that might be subject to the ‘call-in’ procedure in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 15 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules.

None.

The Chairman noted that as the following item (Reigate and Banstead Strategic Commercial Partnership) had been withdrawn from the Agenda by the Chief Executive, there was therefore no need to exclude the press and public from the meeting under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

• (Attachment: 4)REIGATE AND BANSTEAD STRATEGIC COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIP REPORT (208K/bytes)

This item had been withdrawn from the Agenda by the Chief Executive, as subsequent to the principle of the partnership being approved and explored, it had not been possible to reach a financially viable arrangement and this was no longer being pursued by the Council.