Agenda item

To receive a presentation about the Safer Waverley Partnership (SWP) and its statutory obligations including case studies of partnership working. 

To note the priorities contained within the Safer Waverley Partnership Plan for 2019-20. To note the structure and terms of reference of the various groups which operate under the SWP.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee are asked to note the Safer Waverley Partnership Plan 2019-20 and associated activity and comment on the Action Plan.

The Committee received a presentation from Andrew Smith, the Head of Strategic Housing and Delivery, and Superintendent Graham Barnett, the Chairman of the Safer Waverley Partnership (SWP). Also present at the meeting were Katrina Burns and Eve Budd who between them worked 6 days a week as Community Safety Officers.

The Committee was advised that there was a statutory duty arising from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for agencies to work in partnership to tackle crime and disorder. This lead authorities to create Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) and in Waverley it was known as the Safer Waverley Partnership.

The Statutory partners on the SWP were:

·         The Surrey Police 

·         Waverley Borough Council

·         Surrey County Council

·         Guildford and Waverley and North East Hampshire and Farnham Clinical Commissioning Groups

·         Surrey Fire and Rescue; and

·         The Probation Service

There are a number of statutory duties that they have to fulfil including a strategic group, partnership plans, community triggers, domestic homicide reviews (DHRs), and the council duty is section 17s and securitising the work of the CSP.

The structure of the SWP is quite complex with a number of different groups which fed into the main Executive Group. Full terms of reference and membership is detailed in the agenda papers.

The top three priorities for the SWP for 2019-2020 were the following:

1.    Focus on threat, harm, risk and vulnerability

2.    Identify and tackle crime and anti-social behaviour hotspot locations and perpetrators; and

3.    Improve engagement with the public to help make local communities stronger.

The main actitivies taken place that year were

·         JAG and CHaRMM - The JAG kePT an overview of crime and ASB in relation to licensed premises and used a ‘traffic light’ system to identify those where joint work is needed to address risks. The CHaRMM discussed and agreed action to reduce the negative impact that problem individuals and families have on the local community through their anti-social behaviour. The Committee noted that being stretched, the Mental Health Team did not always attend meetings which was disappointing.

·         Domestic Homicide Reviews – They had 6 reviews this year which was the most in Surrey. They had completed 4 with 2 outstanding.

·         Environmental Visual Audits and Crime Prevention Assessments – These looked at things that contributed to crime, and to identify and mitigate them.

·         Task and Finish Groups – Set up by the JAG these were established to resolve problems at specific locations.

·         Awareness raising – Running campaigns such as the Domestic Violence week

·         Roadshows – 4 had taken place this year in the Borough to consult with the public.

·         Road user awareness days – They had been to schools to raise awreness with students.

·         Eagle radio campaigns

To help visualise the work that they did, Andrew Smith went through a simple case study. This involved a location which was experiencing an increase in youth related antisocial behaviour and crime. The identified perpetrators would be nominated to CHaRMM with the troublesome location nominated to the JAG. This would discuss the issues and establish a Task and Finish Group to consider possible solutions.

The Committee was made aware of the challenges facing the partnership. This included diminishing resources and limited staff resources. The DHRs took a huge amount of time and effort and took staff away from day to day activities. Organisational reforms and emerging issues, such as hate crime, begging and rough sleepers and the risk register to mitigate risk. Another difficult area that was becoming more widely a problem was the use of social media, perception and keeping the public better informed.

Cllr Steve Cosser was delighted with the work that the SWP was doing. He had been the Surrey County Council representative 20years ago and was pleased to see the work continuing. He felt they were doing a lot more in some areas but they appeared to be doing less consultation. There was no reference to an annual survey of members of the public. This used to be done to help build the annual plan and built up confidence that they were addressing what was important to them in the community. It was accepted that they did need to work on the way they communicate but they had been looking into this by reaching out to the communities via awareness campaigns and roadshows. And, for example, parking was one issue that was raised and was a big issue for the public and this had resulted in there being an action to address this.

The case study had looked at the issue of ASB around bus stops and Cllr Jenny Else recognised this having been a problem for a long time. She asked how much the partnership was working with Town and Parish Councils. It was agreed that additional work needed to be done to celebrate their successes and to actively promote this. It was suggested that they should meet the Town and Parishes to do a briefing on the SWP. There was a Joint and Town and Parish meeting taking place on 2 December 2019 where it could be done.

Councillor Kevin Deanus advised that there used to be a “60second sheet” which was a basic round up of activities that had been happening. He had found it really useful and informative and a good way to communicate. Katrina Burns, the Community Safety Officer confirmed that they would be doing something similar soon and looking at arranging a briefing as there was a number of new councillors who would benefit from it.

Councillor Kevin Deanus also raised concern that not all partners were taking an active lead on some of the actions. He felt that they should take ownership of some and not just leave them mostly to the Police.

Councillor George Wilson asked about the use of CCTV in the Borough and whether they should be utilised more. Eve Budd, the Community Safety Officer advised that they did not have a control room and only Farnham Town Council that they are run by them. They are not responsible for any fixed cameras but Environmental Enforce had some mobile ones. There was a number of regulations surrounding the use of fixed CCTV, such as GDPR and they needed to justify why they were needed in a public area. Bowring House was permitted a fixed camera because the Council owned it and not public land so there was different criteria. Councillor Steven Cosser also questioned the benefit of CCTV versus the costs of their implementation. They also don’t stop crime happening, it just moved the perpetrators to another location.  Councillors felt that there should be a briefing note (or be part of the training) on the use of CCTV so that there was more understanding.

Councillors felt that the SWP should not just rely on the use of social media to communicate to the public. Not everyone used social media but would read a local community board and it was suggested that these were used more often.

With the points raised above being actioned, the Committee RESOLVED to NOTE the priorities contained within the Safer Waverley Partnership Plan 2019-20 and the structures and terms of reference of the various groups which operated under the SWP.