Agenda item
Community Safety Partnership Plan 2017 - 21
- Meeting of Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Wednesday, 25th October, 2017 6.30 p.m. (Item 8.3)
- View the background to item 8.3
The Community Safety Partnership (CSP) has a statutory duty to produce a Community Safety Partnership Plan which investigates challenges and opportunities for the borough and identifies its priorities for crime reduction.
The Plan (See appendix 1) outlines the Strategic Framework within Tower Hamlets and how the Community Safety Partnership Plan fits into this, specifically through the ‘Safe and Cohesive Community’ theme of the Community Plan.
Minutes:
The Committee was advised that the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) has a statutory duty to produce a Community Safety Partnership Plan which investigates challenges and opportunities for the Borough and identifies its priorities for crime reduction.
The Plan (as set out in Appendix 1) outlines the Strategic Framework within Tower Hamlets and how the Community Safety Partnership Plan fits into this, specifically through the ‘Safe and Cohesive Community’ theme of the Community Plan. It describes the Partnership’s two other statutory duties in order to produce the Plan, the Strategic Assessment 2016 and the Public Consultation on community safety priorities conducted in 2016.
It was noted that in 2016 the Community Safety Partnership reviewed and restructured its governance structure and operating procedures to ensure that it remained fit for purpose, implementing a strategic executive board (CSP Executive), made up of the Statutory Authorities, to drive strategic decision making and oversight.
The Committee was informed that the Community Safety Partnership has agreed on the following four priorities for the term of this Plan:
· Anti-social Behaviour including Drugs and Alcohol;
· Violence;
· Hate Crime, Community Cohesion and Extremism; and
· Reducing Re-offending.
The questions and comments from Members on this report may be summarised as follows:
The Committee:
- Noted that this is a plan that is intended to reflect local concerns;
- Noted that LBTH is paying for extra police officers so how does the Partnership measure their impact;
- Welcomed the positive “buy in” from LBTH to support Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), although not all the officers are in place;
- Wanted to see how to maintain the good relationship with the MPS Centre as this is locally;
- Noted that these resources will be “ring fenced” so that police officers are not being routinely 'abstracted' from their local beats to plug gaps in London-wide public order operations. Or to be taken to provide local aid elsewhere in LBTH but outside of the neighbourhoods that they are tasked to support;
- Noted if there are any specific issues on operations then the Borough Command is happy to give details to Ward Councillors on a 121 basis;
- Wanted to see some information to help build and maintain bridges with the community;
- Noted that Information on how to report low level incidents needs to be clarified as residents have very little confidence in the 101 number
- Expressed concern at the apparent lack of visibility with regard to the Safer Neighbourhood Teams [SNT] in the Borough;
- Noted that at the grassroots level there is a degree of disconnect with the service provided;
- Commented that concerns had been expressed regarding the English Defence Leaguetrying to enter LBTH and wanted to know why the MPS had apparently allowed them to march along Whitechapel Road? In response it was noted that regarding the routing of this march the Borough’s tension Monitoring group is being convened to look at this issue and explain the operational decisions undertaken with regard to the march;
- Felt that the incidence of burglary is on the increase and constituents have indicated to ward councillors their unhappiness at the response of the incidences of such crimes. In response it was noted that the MPS have invested heavily in addressing these crimes and are working closely with Borough to reduce the incidences of these crimes;
- Commented that with regard the reduction of offending there does not seem to be a good understanding around gangs and youth violence. In response it was noted that a strategy is being developed to address knife related crime which is not all about gangs;
- Noted that knife crime is a significant issue and they are used by both gangs and individuals. Therefore, the Borough has several different strands that are being overseen by the partnership;
- Asked for the criteria used to identify an abandoned vehicle and stated that they wished to see abandoned vehicles removed promptly so they do not become an "ASB/ crime generator" and a magnet for a variety of criminal activities impacting on residents quality of life and increasing the "ASB demand" for both the council; police and partner agencies (Subsequent to the meeting Members of the Committee received the criteria as set in the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (Appendix 2 Refers);
- Expressed concern at the misuse of drugs and associated anti-social behaviour and felt that the incidence of such offences was on the increase;
- Noted that most ASB calls are related to drugs offences and in LBTH a new drugs strategy has been brought in against on street; vehicle dealing and use of vulnerable people’s homes i.e. “cuckooed”;
- Noted that Social Landlords are being proactive in addressing ASB and evicting those tenants guilty of being involved in ASB;
- Noted that in 2014 Legislation came into force that now allows residents to call for a review of the response to incidents of ASB;
- Noted that the Partnership is working with schools to address such criminality and the MPS is starting to work with schools where there has been an incidence in a family of Domestic Violence;
- Felt that the report does not really convey how violent crime can also impact on young people and wanted to know what can be done to really help the young people of LBTH. It was also suggested that the plan should include an outcome measure of whether more young people feel safe’;
- Concern was expressed at the attacks using corrosive substances have been reported in a wide range of criminal activities from hate crime to burglaries. It was requested that these be further highlighted in the Plan.
- Concern was expressed that the voice of the victim is not sufficiently highlighted in the plan. In response it was noted that the views of the residents are in the Plan but accepted that it the views of victims of crime could be further highlighted. It was also noted that workshops (not just surveys) should be held for the development of future plans;
- Noted that the Borough Commander (Fire) is leading on a project regarding acid attacks but it was important to reflect the views of both victims and perpetrators;
- Indicated that it would be good if there could have been a workshop to have taken on board the views of victims and perpetrators. In response it was noted that as part of the knife crime work the Partnership has engaged with both the victims and perpetrators of such crimes;
- Noted that the Tower Hamlets Partnership is on a journey and it is important to reflect the needs of local people and provide them with the service that they want;
- Commented that it seemed that the number of responders to the consultation had been very low and that the methods used to communicate with residents does need to be reconsidered. In response it was noted that the Partnership recognises the issues raised and accepts that it needs to take on board the issues highlighted regarding the survey. However, it was felt that the Partners have got concerns of residents right if not the voices of the victims and perpetrators;
- Noted that the Committee Chair had, had a meeting with the Cabinet Member for Culture and Youth and stated that he would like a ‘youth service promise’ in relation to youth justice included in the Community Safety Plan (CSP). As it was felt that such a commitment from the Youth Service should strengthen the Partnership/CSP.
As a result of discussions on the report the Chair Moved and it was:-
RESOLVED
The Committee endorsed the report.
(NB: There were two abstentions from Councillor Wood and Councillor Mustaquim who felt more work was needed to be done with regard to the CSP).
Supporting documents:
- Community Safety Partnership Plan - CoverSheet, item 8.3 PDF 58 KB
- Community Safety Partnership Plan 2017, item 8.3 PDF 156 KB
- Appendix 1 CSP Plan 2017 to 21, item 8.3 PDF 242 KB