Meeting Details

The Committee received report ES/2045 and the Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health and the Community Safety lead stated that it provided an overview of the East Suffolk Community Safety Partnership (CSP), including its relationship with the Suffolk Safer Stronger Communities Board (SSCB), information on CSP priorities, the result of the recent Home Office CSP review, recent achievements and future ambitions. 

The Assistant Cabinet Member explained that the work of the CSP and various projects that sat under the umbrella of the partnership fit within the current ‘Our Direction 2028’ Strategic Plan – ‘Tackling Inequalities’ priority.  He stressed that all CSP partners conducted a huge amount of community safety work that was not reflected in the CSP Action Plan and instead was delivered and monitored via other strategic action plans that sat at County level or within partners’ services.  The work of the CSP was co-ordinated through an Action Plan which was informed by a county-wide strategic assessment produced by Suffolk County Council. This year’s strategic assessment reduced the number of priorities that the CSP should directly focus on, moving some to SSCB level. The split of priorities was now:

SSCB:

• Criminal exploitation – including modern slavery and serious violence
• Violence against women and girls
• Preventing radicalisation

CSP:

• Anti-social behaviour
• Fraud/computer misuse
• Hate crime
• Theft/shoplifting
• Emerging issues

Members' attention was also drawn to the previous iteration of the Action Plan which included a summary of progress made against the previous priorities in paragraph 2.2. 

The Assistant Cabinet Member explained that the new Action Plan included sections designed to promote awareness raising, problem solving, community engagement and information sharing. It also included several key, large scale collaborative projects such as the community safety work around Sizewell C and a Clear Hold Build project in Felixstowe addressing drug-dealing and criminal exploitation. 

The Committee were informed that CSPs no longer received any direct funding as that funding had been diverted to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) when the role was introduced and was used to fund/commission larger scale projects.  It was noted that the Government was currently reviewing CSPs to see whether their structure and purpose might be changed in response to the findings from Part Two of the review of PCCs, which included recognition of the importance of CSPs but highlighted that they could possibly be used more effectively. The majority of this review had now been completed and no significant changes had been identified, apart from a steer that CSPs should work more closely with the PCC, an action that had been added to the latest Action Plan.  The Assistant Cabinet Member concluded that the CSP would also need to see what developed following the King's speech which had included elements of ASB and dealing with shoplifting. 

At the Chair's invitation, Chief Inspector Bodmer explained that the Chief Constable and the PCC had given a clear steer for the Police to work in partnership and be an active partner in the CSP.  Victims were at the heart of everything the Police did, keeping people safe and having local policing priorities focussing on domestic abuse, violence against women and girls (VAWG) and serious violence which included modern slavery so the link could be seen in those priorities.  Community policing had been brought in last year which included dedicated officers responsible for certain areas and ringfenced for community work.  This approach had led to an improvement in Police visibility in towns and villages, as well as some teams being very active on social media.  Hubs were looking at problem solving and working in partnership.  Key ASB initiatives included funded hot spot patrols with areas being identified from analytical data and information from partners.  It was noted that the Police had worked with Lowestoft CCTV to improve it and identify the best areas for placing the CCTV.  Chief Inspector Bodmer explained that the CHB process had been invoked in Felixstowe due to a small cohort of offenders being identified. Initially the Police go in to arrest and charge people where they could, hold the area by putting bail conditions on individuals and other measures to restrict their movements, then work with partners to build a safer community.  This approach had been trialled in Lowestoft last year where a joint initiative with Trading Standards had looked at shops that sold vapes to young people resulting in several shops being closed down and reducing the number of young vapers.

The Chair invited the Police and Crime Commissioner, Mr Passmore, to address the Committee and he firstly referred to a leaflet he had circulated which gave details of the PCC's annual budget and stressed that the CSP was a really important part of trying to prevent and solve crime.  He explained that when a PCC was elected they had to produce a new Crime Plan within a year and consultation on a draft would start around August and then be considered at the Police Crime Panel in January 2025 for implementation in April 2025.  Mr Passmore stated that a Crime and Disorder Reduction grants scheme of £600K was available, as well as money for Victims Commissioning which built on some of the SSCB's work.  He stressed that he wanted more to be done on domestic abuse and violence, adding that in 2012 there had only been one Independent Domestic Violence Advisor across the County but there were now 15/16.  VAWG was a top priority and progress had been made by working together collaboratively to prevent it in the first place but a lot was around better education and bringing up children to know the difference between right and wrong and help those in difficulty.  He pointed out that there was a clear link between high levels of deprivation, lack of opportunity, unemployment and crime and ASB and suggested, therefore, that a better economy would help solve some of that problem.  He also suggested that public sector procurement should also look at the social value of goods and services being bought.  Mr Passmore stated that there was a real emphasis in the new Plan on preventing crime in the first place but he stressed that it was not just the Police's job to do this because all the Responsible Authorities had to work together.   He added that there were some good initiatives in the King’s Speech such as recruiting 13000 Police Officers, PCSO’s or Special Constables but there was no indication of any extra funding and a lot of initiatives announced were already being done eg the community policing model which was working well and raised Police visibility.  He explained that crime had changed so much with most having a digital footprint and there was a need to be more focussed on serious sexual offences, online crime and fraud.  He referred to a new fraud intervention initiative coming forward involving Trading Standards which he hoped East Suffolk Council would support at the Public Sector Leaders Group.  Mr Passmore also outlined several projects that had received funding including the Waveney Domestic Advice Forum, Restitute based near Frostendon, Access Community Trust in Pakefield, and the Level 2 Youth Project in Felixstowe.  The county wide budget had funded Positive Futures helping the night time economy and Pathways Care Farm had been funded to help those with mental health difficulties in the Lowestoft area.  He explained that the chairs or representatives of each of the three Suffolk CSPs were always involved when making decisions on the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership, which included deciding on grants from the £300K managed by the Suffolk Community Foundation and it was hoped to increase the amount this year.  The Foundation had done great work eg on County Lines but partners needed to work together to keep Suffolk as one of the safest counties in the country and the work of the CSP was fundamental to that.

The Chair thanked the Assistant Cabinet Member and guest speakers for their reports and invited Members to ask questions which received the following responses:

• KPI’s were reported through the East Suffolk Council Strategic Plan, Safer Stronger Communities Board and Community Safety Partnerships. 
• The current Action Plan showed the priorities across all the Responsible Authorities, however, it had been realised that there was some duplication, therefore, the new Plan had been simplified as per this Committee's recommendations and so the other Partners would have their own Action Plans which would feed into the CSP Action Plan.
• Where known, lead agencies had been identified for each priority.
• There was a need for some partners to play a more active role in the CSP.
• It was hoped to increase further the number of dedicated Rural Police Officers and that there would be capacity for police officers to be more visible in rural areas.
• Suffolk Constabulary and the Police and Crime Commissioner were happy to attend a Q&A session with parishes if a joint meeting was organised. 
• Shoplifting was unacceptable and the Police were working with businesses on how to deal with offenders as many had got rid of their store detectives.
• Community Pay Back was a Probation led initiative although Police Officers were encouraged to highlight it on social media. 
• It was in the CSP Action Plan to work more closely with Probation to look at joint initiatives.  The PCC stated that he was happy to have joint match funded projects with Probation to provide offenders with support to stop them reoffending.
• Anti-social driving especially late at night disturbed residents and was an increasing problem.  The Police would deal with any criminal aspect of anti-social driving such as donuts around a car park or the Council could issue Section 51 Notices or other measures could be taken jointly eg physical barriers could be put in place if drivers were meeting somewhere on a regular basis.
• Attacks by XL bully dogs and gang intimidation were not big issues within East Suffolk, although more needed to be done on coercive control because trying to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt was extremely difficult and there were very few successful cases so it all came back to education.
• There was a need to find another organisation to take on the work of Suffolk Rape Crisis which had closed but in the meantime Norfolk and Suffolk Victim Care had been given £300K to signpost people.  Discussions also needed to be held with the NHS as there was a big lack in counselling availability.
• There had been some instances of hate crime in East Suffolk but the numbers were low and they were dealt with as a priority.  The Police had a hate crime panel who identified young people at risk of radicalisation. 
• Clear Hold Build was a Home Office initiative and the strategic objective was to identify an area of high criminality/deprivation.  The Police would clear the area by arresting offenders, hold it so criminals could not start up again and build a better community with partners.  The Communities Officers would mainly expect to get involved in the build part of the process but, as it was new, the impact on workloads was not yet known.
• There were different types of data sharing agreements in place across each area of focus for both the CSP and SSCB with only certain people able to know information on cases but it was acknowledged that the processes for sharing information could be better especially on ASB, which was why it was a theme in the Action Plan.
• The Community Safety Survey had been developed with support from CSP partners and had stemmed from trying to understand what community safety tensions there were around Sizewell C.  A survey would be carried out every six months and would create a district wide report that would feed into the CSP and another that was Sizewell C specific.  Both the Council, Suffolk County and the Police had employed officers to support and engage with communities around Sizewell.

There being no further questions, the Chair once again thanked all the speakers and asked the Committee to debate the report and recommendations.

Councillor Jepson suggested it would be useful to have feedback on the impact of CHB on the Council's Officers in approximately six months to see if any additional resources were required.

Councillor Lynch suggested that, once the Action Plan was approved, a concise version be sent out to Town and Parish Councils for information and so they were clear on what to report where.

Councillor Byatt pointed out that there was a need to understand the ramifications of the King's Speech as there might be additional pressures that need resourcing.

Councillors Bennett and Back referred to the announced release of prisoners and it was queried what effect that would have on Probation and what support was available to prisoners to encourage them not to reoffend.  The PCC stated that the numbers being released would not be known until September so the impact on Probation and on victims was unknown at this stage.

On the proposition of Councillor Jepson, seconded by Councillor Lynch it was:

 RESOLVED

1.  That the Crime and Disorder Committee note the report and endorse the proposed Action Plan, subject to lead partners being identified and progress against KPI’s being made clearer, and that a copy of the final approved Action Plan be sent to all Town and Parish Councils with clear instructions on methods for reporting ASB.

2.  That a report be made back to this Committee in 6 months time on the impact of CHB on the Council and the impact on the Probation Service of the release of prisoners with details of any support being made available to them to encourage them not to reoffend.

The Committee received report ES/2046 from the Task and Finish Group in relation to their review of the working practices between the Council and Suffolk Constabulary for dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) across East Suffolk.  The Chair invited Councillor Jepson, Chair of the Task and Finish Group to introduce the report. 

Councillor Jepson  thanked Suffolk Constabulary and officers for their participation in the review which had built on the transformation work the Council had already started.  He stressed that ASB was a very complex issue and he was grateful that the Group had kept discussions to a strategic level.  He explained that the Group had undertaken a SWOT analysis which had identified a number of concerns including:

• the impact of Clear Hold Build (CHB) on the Council's resources;
• if the Police and the Council, as well as residents, were clear on who had responsibility for the different types of ASB; and
• the impact of using different systems. 

Councillor Jepson stated that it was clear that there was a good relationship between the two organisations, however, there was need to ensure that a robust and clear process was in place for sharing information rather than relying on individual relationships between officers from both organisations.  He concluded by drawing attention to the recommendations and suggested that, if approved, these be turned into a joint action plan.

At the Chair's invitation, the Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health and the Community Safety lead stated that he welcomed the findings of the review and the recommendations.  He stressed that close working between the Police and Council on ASB cases was essential to ensure there was a victim focussed response.  The Council was working in partnership with the Police and other providers and he suggested that partners needed to be clear about roles and responsibilities with this clarity communicated in turn to victims and perpetrators.  He added that it was important to recognise that CHB had emerged since the Council's initial ASB transformation project had been undertaken so both organisations needed to work together to get the desired outcomes and he suggested that results be fed back to the CSP who could look at commonalities and find solutions.  He concluded by thanking the Task and Finish Group and Officers for the report.

At the Chair's invitation to respond to the report and recommendations on behalf of the Police,  Chief Inspector Bodmer reassured the Committee that the Police was keen to work closely with Council colleagues.  He explained that there were some issues for the Police in using ECINS, however, the Senior ASB Lead had offered to provide some training which would hopefully reduce some of the duplication.  He acknowledged that, whilst a Data Sharing Agreement was in place, some hurdles needed to be overcome to ensure that data was being shared appropriately.  Chief Inspector Bodmer stated that engagement with Council colleagues on ASB was very positive in the south end of the district and he was hoping that would happen in the north too.  He added that the cost of Civil Offence Orders had risen and concluded that ASB was a diverse and complex issue that was not as simple as it used to be, so there was a need to share responsibility and provide training on it.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee and the following responses were received:

•  Most of the recommendations were already being worked on but it would be useful for this Committee to review progress against the recommendations in a year's time. 
• Whilst it was acknowledged that there probably was a link between low school attendance and ASB, 87% of reported ASB was actually from adults over 18.  
• Both organisations had stated that funding was a threat during the SWOT analysis, however, it was made clear that there were no planned staffing cuts at the moment.
• The Council had more resource than ever before to deal with ASB including a two year Senior ASB role and an ASB Support Officer, however, there was more ASB work to do which stretched resources across the whole team and the Senior ASB postholder had not been able to really start the work yet until her substantive role was backfilled.  
• ASB was identified as a priority in the Strategic Plan and more resources were needed to deal with it, however, the Council was in a challenging financial position. 
• There were a lot more ASB cases between neighbours which were generally very complex situations.
• Some victims could become disengaged due to Court delays which then had a detrimental affect on the case.

RESOLVED 

That the Task and Finish Group’s report be noted and the following recommendations approved and turned into a joint action plan with progress reviewed by this Committee in 12 months:

1. That the Council and Police:

• Liaise to make it clear to all parties which organisation had responsibility for the different types of ASB and how cases would be passed to other organisations (“handoff”) to ensure that a victim was not given false expectations of how and who would deal with an incident/s.

• Review communication between partners to ensure everyone involved was aware of the status of cases.

• Review the Information Sharing Agreement to ensure the correct processes were undertaken and information request forms were being used, including a reminder to Officers what information they can and cannot request/share.

• Formalise a process to obtain personal sensitive data more expediently and when requests should be made to the compliance team as opposed to individual officers.

• Review the Case Review Meetings in terms of co-ordination and processes to ensure the right people attended.

• Liaise to provide more clarity on the Clear Hold Build Framework to ensure that all parties were aware of expectations.

• Review and increase use of Ecins by police (which is the agreed ASB case management system for high level ASB cases).

2. That the Senior ASB Officer in conjunction with other relevant departments:

• Review the Council’s communication protocols for victims/perpetrators to ensure they know the status of their case, especially in relation to when cases were closed.

• Undertake a Council-wide review of all internal ASB forms to ensure consistency and ease of use.

• Ensure other Council Officers are trained ASAP to enable them to issue notices and that Registered Providers be encouraged to adopt a CPW/N process to enable them to issue notices

The Committee adjourned at 8.05pm and reconvened at 8.15pm.

At the Chair's invitation, Councillor Candy, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health gave an update in relation to the direction of travel of services within her portfolio and the following responses were given to Members' queries:

• The Team had taken account of recommendations made at a previous Scrutiny Committee meeting as part of the Review of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licences.
• The Latitude Festival licence had been regularised and it was up to them to decide what capacity they wanted but they then had to comply with it or they would be in breach of their licence. 
• Uber were active in Ipswich, however, they had not applied to start up in East Suffolk but if they wanted to, then they would be treated the same as any other applicant.
•  It was confirmed that most licensing fees were on a statutory or cost recovery basis but the Cabinet Member agreed to discuss the fees for community events supported by the Council such as Felixstowe Carnival. 
• BTOM import control measures had started at the Port on 30 April 2024 and the number of notifications had nearly tripled but there was a long way to go before it became a sustainable business.
• PHYLIS, the Port Health software developed by the Council, had been sold to 85% of ports around the country. The software now known as NEOMA had been revamped to give it more functionality and had already attracted new business from Dover, Port of London, Liverpool and Belfast.
• The secondment opportunities to DEFRA etc had been very positive as it enabled the Council to obtain a lot of information from them and build relationships.
• There was now only one remaining vet position left to fill at Port Health but it was difficult because the Government operated a risk based model which meant that the number of checks fluctuated.  The Council did receive fees for undertaking the checks but trade went up and down and the Council had to employ a lot of staff to cover the busy periods.
• It was acknowledged that more could be done to publicise the fact that East Suffolk Council was part of the Port business.
• Feel Good Suffolk (FGS) was managed by districts but funded entirely by money from Public Health at Suffolk County Council.  Data would be submitted to them at the end of this financial year on how many clients had been through the 12 week funded programme and sustained their weight loss or stopped smoking etc.  Some clients would receive semi funded ongoing support afterwards to sustain the changes.  People could self refer or be referred by health professionals.
• Feel Good Suffolk had met with both leisure centre operators as it was hoped to grow the health and wellbeing side of their offer beyond the significant discounts they already provided on an ongoing basis. 
• The Council was now providing different options for people who wanted to lose weight eg our own weight management system and walking groups.
• The Communities Team had produced a "Well Minds" booklet which provided key information and resources to support mental health.  FGS did not directly deliver mental health support but advisers signposted and referred into external services where required, whilst tracking wellbeing scores of clients to identify where further support might be needed.
• Social media was used to promote health campaigns but it was acknowledged that more could be done to publicise what was available.  
• Case studies of successful participants would be used to promote the FGS programme.
• FGS was aimed at adults but the Council's wider programme tried to push resources digitally as well as published as it was recognised that digital health eg the correlation between the use of social media and deteriorating mental health, was important, especially for children and young adults.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and Officers for the update.

The Chair stated that the Work Programme which had been circulated prior to the meeting had been drawn up as a result of discussions by the Committee and was a mixture of holding the Cabinet to account, having an overview of the Council’s budget and performance as well as scrutinising topics Members felt were important to the residents of East Suffolk.  It was noted that two additional meetings needed to be added to the Calendar of Meetings to cover all the work and there was flexibility in the Programme to add in extra topics throughout the year if necessary.

On the proposition of Councillor Plummer, seconded by Councillor Jepson it was:

RESOLVED

That the Committee's Work Programme for 2024/25 be approved.

The Chair stated that, as agreed at a previous meeting, the Environmental Theme Action Plan would be considered at the next meeting on 19 September 2024 which would be followed by the Cabinet Member Scrutiny Session with Councillor Tom Daly, Cabinet Member for Energy and Climate Change which had been postponed following the cancellation of the May 2024 meeting.