3
The Committee received ES/2548 the joint report of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health and the Assistant Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health and Community Safety Lead. At the Chair's invitation, the Assistant Cabinet Member introduced the report stating that the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) had developed further since last year, however, national guidance from the Government on how CSPs would operate in the future was still awaited. He added that the additions to the Community Policing Officers had been a real success with named Officers being more visibly on patrol in town centres and taking part in community events with Council Officers, particularly those involving young people. He concluded that the recent Impact Days had been an opportunity for discussion between East Suffolk and Suffolk County Councils, the Police and other agencies to keep communities safe.
The Chair invited Richard Baldwin, Programme Manager for Communities at Suffolk County Council to give an overview of their contribution to the Community Safety Partnership. The Programme Manager referred to paragraph 3.2 of the report which detailed a number of priorities that were co-ordinated at a County-wide level through the Safer Stronger Communities Board such as Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG), preventing radicalisation and criminal exploitation which he felt represented the greatest threat, risk and harm to the people of East Suffolk. His explained that his Team coordinated a system response to those priorities which were supported by Steering Groups, underpinned by strategies and associated action plans, all of which fed into Community Safety Partnership work locally. Within those priorities, his Team delivered a huge amount of training and awareness raising, as well as commissioning domestic abuse services, women's refuge, safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse through a Government grant, a domestic abuse outreach service and 24-7 phoneline. The Team also helped translate Government policy, statutory duties or legislative changes into operational practice in the County not just for the County Council but for the Suffolk system. He added that obviously these priorities could not be addressed by any one organisation alone, so it was essential there was a co-ordinated system wide response to be able to have the impact needed. He explained that they were currently waiting for further Government guidance on the Victims of Prisoners Act which included the introduction of offensive weapons homicide reviews and a Duty to Collaborate whereby local authorities, the Integrated Care Board and Police and Crime Commissioners pooled their resources to support victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. He concluded that PREVENT was likely to be high on the agenda in the coming months given the ongoing Southport inquiry and the recent Manchester synagogue attack.
The Chair thanked Mr Baldwin and invited Chief Inspector Fiske to address the Committee on Suffolk Constabulary's community safety activities. The Chief Inspector clarified that he covered the Eastern Policing area eg Lowestoft, Beccles to Snape and across to Eye. Whilst he did not cover other areas of East Suffolk he was able to give an update on the Felixstowe Clear Hold Build (CHB) project. He explained that the underlying criminality the Police felt had presented the highest threat of harm was now under control and there were no signs of any resurgence so the project had moved into the Build phase where the Police stepped back slightly to allow partners to come forward to progress the strategy and projects. The project was also being assessed to look at the overall impact of CHB to learn lessons and address any issues identified. He added that, as part of the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, Felixstowe had also received two extra dedicated Officers. The Chief Inspector also reported on the following:
- There had been an expansion to the Sizewell Policing Team which was likely to increase further as Sizewell C progressed. The Team primarily focussed on liaison with the Sizewell Project Team with lots of community events.
- ASB spotlight patrols had taken place in Lowestoft Town Centre primarily in the Harbour Ward and, as part of the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, there had been an uplift in dedicated Community Officers with two more Officers planned for Beccles and Felixstowe in February/March.
- Starting from November, all Neighbourhood Community Officers would have to attend a five day national training course on how they could be more effective at dealing with ASB.
- There had also been a focus on the ASB risk assessment processes, especially the supervision of those assessments with any investigations recorded for ASB that did not have a suitable risk assessment being flagged up on a monthly basis so the Chief Inspector could give direct feedback to the Officers to ensure it was completed. He hoped this new process would lead to more effective and consistent assessments going forwards.
- Retail crime was a significant Police priority locally and nationally. The local action plan aligned with national strategy and at a national level the Police were engaging with large retailers to improve reporting methods so they had a better understanding of what was required to secure convictions. More use was also being made of civil powers such as Criminal Behaviour Orders so, where there were persistent offenders, these would be pursued through civil and criminal routes. Reporting methods had also been reviewed to make reporting retail crime more streamlined and efficient making it easier for any sized retailer to provide a report and the evidence needed.
- As part of the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, every Ward would now have a dedicated named officer who published their engagement events online. They also had a lot of ad hoc engagements. The number of officers dedicated to community policing would increase from February/March 2026.
- The Community Partnership hub within Suffolk Police had subject matter experts on Hate Crime, ASB and VAWG and they worked directly with the community policing teams. The hub also worked closely with local Councils to improve the Police response and share information across the Police and Council partners.
The Chair thanked all the speakers and the following responses were received to Members' questions:
- It was confirmed that the figures quoted in paragraph 2.2 referred to 2022 and 2023 as the 2024 figures were not available yet. There had been a 16% reduction from 483 in 2022 down to 390 in 2023.
- Whilst there was no official action plan to keep small shopkeepers safe in an emergency, Police Officers visited shops of all sizes twice per year to offer advice on dealing with shoplifting etc. Covert Officers were also in place. It was envisaged that for towns like Lowestoft, every shop would regularly have a uniformed presence and shop/business owners were welcome to speak to Police Officers on the beat.
- In relation to the unauthorised taking of vehicles, these were primarily mopeds or small motorcycles in residential areas because people did not secure them using locks etc. The Police had a covert and un-covert presence targeting certain people which usually resulted in a lull before they started taking vehicles again.
- Because of the fears of small business owners, the CSP had now agreed a small grant fund of up to £2K with match funding from the business to provide crime prevention measures such as cameras, shutters etc as well as wrap around support/advice on crime prevention eg positioning of tills. The retail crime prevention grant was also linked into the Police Action Plan and included sharing information.
- Border Force were involved in all the Impact Days and they had made a number of arrests. They were also invited to CSP meetings.
- Funding was a big issue not only for the CSP but for charities and smaller organisations who were finding it difficult and were looking at ways to work jointly together.
- VAWG was a national priority and there had been a suggestion that the Home Office might provide some investment later in the year.
- It was acknowledged that there were issues with the 101 service and that some residents were not online or did not want to use it which was a challenge. However, it was confirmed that using 101 was the quickest way to report non-emergencies but if necessary the named Police Officer could be contacted directly.
- The misuse of vehicles could be categorised as a driving offence or ASB but realistically the Police had to witness it to get a successful prosecution. Areas where it was known that vehicles were being misused were targeted by the Police.
- A lot of work had been carried out between the Police, Landguard Trust and Parking Services to stop vehicles congregating and doing donuts etc and a PSPO was currently out to consultation which was likely to cover both car parks. A mail drop survey would also be undertaken for those affected that did not wish to complete the online consultation. Depending on the response received, the PSPO could also include the roads leading to the Landguard site. The point was made that residents should report speeding etc as this helped authorities deal with issues.
- Hate crime figures were monitored but not many were being reported at the moment. Information from the Suffolk Safer Partnership would be circulated in due course.
- Police online reporting processes were being reviewed to make them more effective and streamlined and it was confirmed that residents should report incidents each time they happened rather than keeping a log so they could be monitored more effectively by the Police.
- If a named Police Officer was on long term sick, cover would now be provided so hopefully communities would not be left without provision in future.
- People were urged to report theft or shoplifting as these were underreported. The Police assessed the urgency of their response in terms of whether the incident was in progress or there was a risk to injury or loss of life. Persistent shoplifters would be dealt with by both civil and criminal routes. A Criminal Behaviour Order could be issued which banned someone from a location or particular shops.
- Since the previous Committee review into ASB, the Council and Suffolk Constabulary were working much more in synergy, however, more work needed to be done internally across the Council.
- CCTV cameras were available and could identify people a lot better now. If they were monitored then the Police were able to react quickly or could pre-empt reports eg if someone on a Criminal Behaviour Order was in an area they should not be then the Police could react. It was much easier to provide evidence with digital systems and presenting it to a court was highly effective. It was also very effective for locating offenders.
- Nothing should be painted on any street furniture without permission and any unlicensed attachments such as flags would be removed as part of routine work. If something contained offensive material then this would be dealt with on a case by case basis. The County Council was liaising with East Suffolk Council and the Police on this national issue. A response from the Highways Authority on their approach to flags on street furniture etc would be circulated in due course.
- Cycle theft was not a particular issue in the Eastern Policing area. Residents were urged to ensure they were identifiable with serial numbers etc because bikes were often found when properties were searched so were recoverable. The Chief Inspector stated that he would remind Police Officers to stop cyclists who had no lights or were riding in an anti-social way.
- A common problem with support for young people was that funding was generally only for a year. The Government had announced Pride in Place funding of £2M each for Felixstowe West and Lowestoft Central over 10 years and the money would be put in the hands of the people to decide how it was spent eg public realm or other matters. Suffolk County Council had asked the Government for multi-year funding for the Holiday Activity Fund and the Department for Education had confirmed a three year funding deal which would enable more strategic thinking around the issues.
- Road safety was a high priority and the Police put a lot of resource into it to combat use of mobile phones and drug/drink driving, speeding etc. Safety camera locations were based on statistics. The Road Policing Team had now been combined with each Operational Area so there were more Police around and the main focus was on the A12 and A47. All Officers had a road policing remit too.
- Discussions were still being held regarding CCTV in Felixstowe and if the Town Council agreed to recorded instead of a live monitored system then this could be moved forward more quickly.
The Chair invited the Committee to debate and suggest any recommendations.
Councillor Jepson stated that Community Action Suffolk and Suffolk Community Foundation were concerned about funding for the voluntary and community sector so the Council should be thinking about their viability because it would have a knock on impact on communities and families and crime. He also queried how confident the Council was about the relationship between internal departments dealing with ASB because if they were not working together effectively then residents suffered.
Councillor Lynch stated that, whilst the report was helpful, the data was nearly two years out of date and should be newer than the figures for 2022. The Communities Manager acknowledged the point and stated that the Strategic Assessment would be refreshed from March/April 2026.
Councillor Bennett suggested that the Landguard PSPO should include the adjacent streets as they were also being impacted. The Senior ASB Officer explained that the consultation would guide what was included within the PSPO but residents had already mentioned about the impact on adjacent roads. She added that evidence was needed to support the PSPO and, because the Police would enforce it, the final area would be agreed in conjunction with them. Councillor Bennett expressed concern that the survey might not be asking residents the right questions which could lead to the adjacent roads being missed. The Senior ASB Officer stated that the survey was online so she would send a link to Councillor Bennett to have a look at it. Councillor Bennett suggested that if a PSPO was being explored then the whole area should be considered. Councillor Plummer suggested that Ward Councillors be asked about proposed areas before PSPO consultations started. Members were reassured that the Felixstowe Communities Officer had spoken to the Town and Parish Councils prior to the consultation. Councillor Ninnmey referred to a Home Office grant given to Felixstowe Town Council for mobile cameras and suggested that having a couple of these available for use across the whole district would give evidence for this type of anti-social activity.
At the Chair's request, Councillor Jepson clarified that he was recommending the Council should have a better understanding of the risks of partners who were regularly reliant on public funding to ensure they would still be able to operate to their full capacity. He also felt that an assurance was needed from the Senior ASB Officer that she was satisfied the different departments were communicating effectively together, therefore, he recommended writing to the relevant Cabinet Members and Heads of Service to ensure this happened.
Councillor Lynch reiterated that reports should include up to date data and suggested that better information should be made available on local Police contacts eg in magazines. The Chief Inspector clarified that the information was available online but he would speak to locality managers to see where else they publicised their details.
Councillor Bennett reiterated the suggestion that Ward Councillors be consulted on the scope of a PSPO before it went out to consultation as they would know the area. The Senior ASB Officer clarified that ultimately it would be the consultation results that would decide on the PSPO boundaries.
Councillor Leach asked if the Police would be able to give Ward Councillors more information on crime in their area, perhaps on a monthly basis so they did not have to find out through Facebook. The Chief Inspector responded that the Police made an assessment about serious incidents but his understanding was that information was being shared with Councillors so he would double check that was being done effectively as he would expect that anything that had a significant community impact to be shared with Councillors. The Assistant Cabinet Member stated that he had been trying to encourage the Police to share details of serious incidents with him or the Cabinet Member so the information could be disseminated.
On the proposition of Councillor Deacon, seconded by Councillor Jepson it was
RESOLVED
1. That an update on the following be provided to a future meeting of the Committee:
- Hate Crime Figures for East Suffolk.
- The Highways Authority's approach to dealing with flags on street furniture etc.
- Where local Police contact details were publicised or made available to communities.
- The arrangements in place for the Police to share with Ward Councillors information on serious incidents which had a significant impact on a community.
2. That the Chief Inspector remind Police Officers to stop cyclists who had no lights or were riding in an anti-social way.
3. That the Cabinet Member liaise with voluntary and community sector colleagues to understand if they were able to maintain existing levels of service following reductions in funding opportunities and consider the potential impact on residents if they were not able to do so.
4. That, in future, the Senior ASB Officer contact Ward Councillors before formal consultation on a PSPO in their area commenced so they could help to scope the consultation.
5. That crime reports contain more up to date information in future.
6. That an email be sent to Cabinet Members and Heads of Service to request them to commit to developing and embedding joined-up processes across all service areas with an ASB remit to ensure that residents experienced a consistent and equitable level of service, regardless of which team or department they engaged with, and that the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Community Health monitor progress on a quarterly basis with a view to reporting back to this Committee at the next Crime and Disorder Committee in 2026.
The Committee adjourned at 8.15pm and reconvened at 8.23pm.