To consider the Community Safety Plan.

The Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Health and the Safer and Stronger Communities Officer have been invited to attend for this item.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and the Safer and Stronger Communities Officer to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member introduced the report which set out the Swale Community Safety Plan 2016/19.  He explained it was a three-year rolling document, owned by the Swale Community Safety Partnership (CSP), and it set out the priorities for the next three years.

The Safer and Stronger Communities Officer (SSCO) explained that a major change this year was that a Safeguarding priority had been introduced.

The Chairman invited Members to firstly comment on pages 3 – 6 of the Plan.  The Cabinet Member and SSCO answered Members questions as set out below.

Page 3

Members raised the following points and questions:  Swale Action To End Domestic Abuse (SATEDA) did not seem to be mentioned as a partner; there was a One-Stop Shop on the Isle of Sheppey, and continuing provision in Sittingbourne, what about Faversham and the rural areas?; Should Councillors be included and involved in the whole process, for example in training sessions?; and what was the ‘continuing provision in Sittingbourne’?

The SSCO advised that SATEDA was delivering the One-Stop Shop on the Isle of Sheppey, and the ‘continuing provision in Sittingbourne’ was the One-Stop Shop. Currently in Faversham there was the facility of a drop-in one-on-one service; there were plans to convert to a one-stop shop if required in the future.  She stated that training could be opened up for Councillors to attend, and this could be added to the Action Plan.

The Cabinet Member explained that the CSP was a partnership, not a public forum.  He praised the work that the Community Safety Unit (CSU) in Sittingbourne did and that it was a beacon in Kent for best practice.  He stated that if Councillors had an issue, they could go to the CSU.  Some aspects of the CSP were confidential and the Cabinet Member considered the way it operated as a partnership, rather than a public forum,  was best suited for the type of work that was undertaken.

The SSCO confirmed that she would include more information on Councillors to reflect their resources and contribution to the Partnership.

A Member considered there should be more reference to schools, particularly primary and junior to reflect issues that some pupils might be going through.

The SSCO explained that schools were not a statutory partner in terms of the CSP.  There had in the past been a Safer Schools Officer; the Safeguarding priority was now in place to raise awareness, and the focus was on risk groups, rather than a generic approach.

The Member raised concern with potentially ever increasing issues, such as extremism which he considered should be raised within schools, and that there should be dialogue with schools to see if there were any issues.

The Cabinet Member explained that a Local Children’s Partnership Group had been launched, and this Group has representatives from local schools and would be the forum to address education based issues.

Page 4

A Member sought clarification over the term ‘cross-over in priorities’ as referred to in paragraph 4(i).

The SSCO explained that there was a large number of priorities within the Police and Crime Plan and the majority mirrored those in the CSP.

The SSCO agreed to look into some grammatical errors within the Plan.

Page 5

Community Concerns – a Member questioned the range of issues that were being included.

Page 6

A Member considered there should be more focus on drug issues and their impact on young people in the Borough and this should be a priority.

The SSCO explained that drugs were recognised as an issue and referenced within individual priorities in the Plan, but advised that enforcement was largely a Police issue.

Councillor Mike Henderson moved the following motion:  ‘That the CSP considers that the Plan be modified to include the mis-use and use of drugs and substances in the list of priorities’.  This was seconded by Councillor Andy Booth.

The Cabinet Member advised that this would be submitted to the CSP for them to add as a priority if they agreed.  A Member stated that he hoped adding this as a priority would not mean that another one was lost.

Members agreed the motion.

The Chairman invited Members to comment on the Priorities for 2016/17 as set out on pages 6 – 12 in the Plan.

Page 7 – Violence Against Women and Girls

In response to a question, the SSCO provided clarification on the  ‘standard’ category of risk victims.  This was achieved via a scoring system and ‘standard’ was used rather than ‘low’.

A Member asked whether violence against men and boys was included as a priority?

The SSCO acknowledged that this was an issue, but explained that 99% of the victims coming forward were women or girls.  She advised that SATEDA were happy to develop their services to include males, but currently resources were reactive to the demonstrable need.

The Member stated that men who were abused were often not comfortable coming forward and this needed to be addressed through education.

In response to a question, the SSCO explained that all work was carried out by charitable organisations and she could amend the Plan to reflect  this.  She advised that out of the 2622 figure, most domestic abuse incidents were reported on the Isle of Sheppey.

Page 8 – Crime

A Member requested that the statistics in the Plan be more specific.

The SSCO advised that as noted on page 6, the data generally related to the period 1 October 2014 – 30 September 2015.

A Member stated that crime rates on the Isle of Sheppey may be artificially swayed as there were specific holiday periods were the population level increased significantly.  The SSCO advised that monthly figures took this into account.

Page 9 – Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)

Members sought clarification on the figures in the first paragraph and whether there was a cross-over, were the incidents reported to the Police and were other housing associations, apart from AmicusHorizon, included?

The SSCO explained that there may be a large crossover in the figures and advised that AmicusHorizon had the majority of the housing stock, although this was slowly changing, but there was no available data at the moment.

The Cabinet Member for Performance advised that incidents reported to AmicusHorizon were reported on a quarterly basis to the Police.

A Member reported that speeding was a high priority for residents.  He explained that Kent Police were involved, as well as Kent Fire and Rescue Service, and he highlighted the Community Speed Watch initiative.

The SSCO advised that initially the CSP role was that of educational/information.  She stated that she could make the Community Speed Watch more specific in the Plan.  The Member explained that as speeding was such an issue, support from the CSP could help.

A Member considered the ‘activities to tackle issue’ did not seem to be community safety issues, e.g. environmental ASB, and suggested the wording be changed to show community safety priorities, rather than Swale Borough Council priorities.

The Cabinet Member advised that ASB was a generic term within the CSU and included all the issues listed.

A Member raised concern with the problem of lorry parking in the Borough and the associated environmental issues.  The SSCO advised that the CSU were aware of this issue and also the ASB of the drivers.  An enforcement-based solution was being looked into.  It was a matter of managing the behaviour of the drivers, and to try and move the lorries on.

In response to a question, the SSCO explained that the Positive Ticket Pilot was a new Kent County Council (KCC) initiative to reward positive behaviour.

Page 10 – Safeguarding

A Member requested further information on safeguarding vulnerable adults; Operation Jupiter; evidence of modern slavery; and the ‘emerging community’.

The SSCO explained that with regard to vulnerable adults it was about raising awareness, especially around those who were not engaging.  There had been some success with Operation Jupiter which was in place to tackle gang activity.  Modern slavery was a national issue, which also occurred in Swale, and there was a need to build-on intelligence.  Examples where modern slavery occurred included farms, nail bars and car washes.  She confirmed that emerging communities were not settled communities, i.e. they were where migrants lived.

Page 11 – Troubled Families Programme

A Member suggested the wording at the final bullet point be amended to read: ‘% families against the target for which a Payment by Results claim have been submitted and accepted’.

Page 11 – Reducing Reoffending

In response to a question, the SSCO confirmed that this did not include crime committed in prison, but dealt with offenders to support them when they came out of prison.

Page 13 – Action Plan 2016/17

The SSCO advised that under 1.5 in the table, programmes to work to reduce offending were not an alternative to prosecution.  She further advised that under 3.5, although the timescale between agreement of action plan and delivery was May 2016 to March 2017, some activities would be delivered during this period.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that a ‘Plain English’ approach to the wording in the Plan would be implemented for the final version.  He would advise the CSU of the suggestions the Committee had made.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Health and the Safer and Stronger Communities Officer for attending or this item.

Resolved:

(1)       That the Swale Community Safety Plan be noted and the comments made by the Committee be taken into account, particularly the recommendation to include the mis-use and use of drugs and substances in the list of priorities.