Agenda item

To provide members with an update on Community Safety Partnership work at a local and county level (report of the Assistant Director – Wellbeing and Community Leadership enclosed).

Inspector Matt Dickinson will also be in attendance for this item.

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Wellbeing and Community Leadership which provided members with an update on Community Safety Partnership work at a local and county level.

The Community Safety Manager and Inspector Matt Dickinson were in attendance for this item.

The Community Safety Manager reminded members that following agreement at the 15 November 2023 Performance Monitoring Panel meeting, the Crime and Disorder Report would be provided annually and scheduled according to the release of annual data. The following points were highlighted from the report:

• Regarding ‘complex cases’, whilst these had previously been viewed from an anti-social behaviour and enforcement perspective, the team had identified that many such cases required a mental health focus. Following discussions with the Safer Lincolnshire Partnership, a Task and Finish Group was set up which recommended that communication between Community Safety Teams and Mental Health Services be improved. A process had been implemented to this effect and work was ongoing;
• The following information was appended to the report:
  • Community Safety Strategy Action Plan 2023-24 at Appendix A;
  • Enforcement action to address Anti-Social Behaviour in South Holland 2023-24 at Appendix B;
  • Safer Lincolnshire Partnership Annual Report 2023-24 at Appendix C (including sub-appendices); and
  • CCTV Annual Statistical Report 2023-24 at Appendix G.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members were aware that some residents had been affected by cannabis fumes from neighbouring properties and gardens and enquired about the legality of such activity and whether support was available for those affected. How could such activity be reported?
  • The Community Safety Manager responded that:
    • A Noxious Odour Procedure (outlined at page 107 of the agenda) had been implemented across Lincolnshire;
    • Reports of incidents could be made direct to the council or agencies (for example Police/Housing Association) and the Noxious Odour Procedure would be followed; and
    • Members were advised to contact the Community Safety Manager Support regarding support requests for specific cases;
  • Inspector Dickinson confirmed that the possession of cannabis in any location was a criminal offence. The use of enforcement was facilitated through the partnership working with local councils.

• Members referred to the Community Safety Strategy Action Plan 2023-2024 specifically in respect of the Safety of Women and Girls noted at page 75, and requested an update regarding the progress of CCTV.
  • The Community Safety Manager confirmed that whilst the report included data relevant to the partnership area, South Holland was not awaiting upgrades to its CCTV equipment; and
  • Inspector Dickinson responded that CCTV review capability had been made accessible to all police officers based at Spalding Police Station. A part-time volunteer was also in place to undertake reviews on behalf of the police. Due to the increased capacity, it was anticipated that the utilisation of CCTV would increase. Inspector Dickinson invited all Ward Members to contact him directly regarding any specific issues affecting their wards.

• Members asked how Community Payback options were being explored. Could an update be provided in this respect for South Holland.
  • The Community Safety Manager responded that:
    • Work was ongoing in terms of the ‘Pride in Place’ and ‘Purple Flag’ aspirations and that further progress would be a focus for 2024/2025; and
    • The team were exploring other circumstances where Community Payback could be utilised. A recent enquiry had been made regarding the utilisation of Community Payback for those responsible for graffiti on private buildings however this was not accepted. Further explorations would be made.

• Members discussed the CCTV Service Annual Statistical Report and the following points were raised:
  • Members referred to the summary of data and noted that the figures for South Holland were considerably lower than East Lindsey or Boston. Members were aware of anti-social behaviour in the district and therefore questioned if the data reflected fewer incidents in South Holland compared to the other authorities or whether fewer incidents were recorded/observed by operators, potentially due to capacity issues. Was the system being used sufficiently in and for South Holland?;
  • The monitoring of and access to CCTV footage in Spalding was welcomed. Members were keen to visit the CCTV suite to obtain a greater insight into its operation.
  • Members questioned the level of public knowledge and confidence in the system which potentially impacted the value of reporting incidents where CCTV evidence could assist.
    • The Community Safety Manager responded that:
      • Incidents were recorded when reported by a member of the public or when identified by the CCTV operator;
      • CCTV cameras across the partnership areas were monitored by the same team and therefore equal capacity was in place;
      • A visit to the CCTV suite was supported and could be arranged and member interest would be sought after the meeting;
      • Where CCTV footage had contributed to the positive outcome of a case, relevant details would be included in the publicity in order to increase awareness and confidence in the system. The recent recruitment of a local volunteer had increased capacity for this to take place and findings would be included in future reports to the Committee and public;
      • The number of camera incidents largely related to the number of submitted reports (which would lead to a request for footage by the police) rather than the number of cameras installed in an area/district.
    • Inspector Dickinson added that East Lindsey experienced a seasonal increase in crime which did not affect South Holland.

• Members referred to the most 20 active CCTV cameras and noted that anti-social behaviour was not captured in rural wards/areas. Some parishes were experiencing a number of anti-sociable behaviour incidents each week. Whilst comments from residents relating to incidents were frequently reported on social media, there appeared to be the perception that an official report to the police would not trigger a response. Members urged that CCTV facilities be actively promoted to parish councils in order to support the wider district and that responses to queries from parish councils on the matter were addressed.
  • The Community Safety Manager stated that:
    • Anti-social behaviour mentioned by members had not been reported to SHDC or the police;
    • The importance of incident reporting could not be overstated as this supported the justification of the installation of a CCTV camera and resources, including police and community warden response capacities;
    • Whilst the ‘Safer Streets’ project had prioritised resources and team capacity, active discussions were to be held with parishes in respect of the utilisation of CCTV across the district; and
    • Responses to queries submitted by specific parish councils would be followed up.
  • Inspector Dickinson added that:
    • The police needed to be aware of all such incidents affecting communities and reiterated the importance that all be reported. Personal responsibility and ownership in respect of reporting incidents was required;
    • It was important to note that the restructure of resources within police forces was informed and justified by reported data, and the following examples were stated:
      • PCSOs were based in areas informed by the Vulnerable Location Index which included an assessment of reported figures; and
      • A reduction in staff had occurred in areas where reports, which may have justified a resource, had not been received.
  • In response, members stated that:
    • The public needed to be made aware of the need to report crime and anti-social behaviour and conversely, the impact of not doing so. A joint publicity campaign was called-for.
    • In addition, crime reported by ward members on behalf of residents were not acted upon as personal reporting was required. It was felt this needed to be reviewed.

• Members asked how many staff monitored the CCTV cameras at any one time and whether their role was to provide a pro-active or reactive response.
  • The Community Safety Manager responded that:
    • The CCTV control room was usually double-staffed but could be single-staffed at times of absences; 
    • The cameras were monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days per week; and
    • As there were many cameras to view, the operators were trained to identify behaviour that was out of the ordinary which could then be further checked.
  • Inspector Dickinson advised members that upon report of an ongoing incident, live footage could be viewed in the police control room which enabled an increased response time. Whether such activity was captured within the statistics was unknown. 

• Members queried whether the CCTV cameras utilised facial recognition technology.
  • Inspector Dickinson responded that such technology was utilised by larger forces but was not in place for Lincolnshire due to the cost; and
  • The Community Safety Manager added that facial recognition technology was controversial however the upgraded CCTV system in Spalding had the capacity to identify specific clothing colours.

• The Portfolio Holder for Public Protection noted improvements with the current operation of the CCTV control room and welcomed the recent development that the footage from Spalding cameras was now viewable at Spalding police station. He queried the timeline of footage from Holbeach and Crowland cameras being accessible in Spalding.
  • Inspector Matt Dickinson would investigate the matter and report back to members after the meeting.

• Members asked whether the call waiting times for non-urgent reports to 101 were available. Extensive and unreasonable waiting periods had been experienced and members called for increased confidence in the system. Members suggested information to assist with the reporting of crime be publicised throughout the district and that a text reporting system, akin to the ‘Fix my Street’ App, be considered. Improvements were needed.
  • Inspector Dickinson responded that:
    • Call waiting times to 101 would be provided after the meeting. The police had shared a presentation which included a range of facts and figures at a recent six-monthly meeting with parish councils and the slides would be shared with members.
    • In respect of the six-monthly meeting, invitations had been sent to parish clerks for circulation to parish councillors but only three councillors had attended. The invitee list would be checked to ensure that all parishes were invited;
    • The need to increase capacity in the 101 service had been acknowledged and a further 15 call takers had been recruited. It was to be noted that any investment in one particular area impacted negatively on others and in this case had resulted in a decrease in the number of PCSOs;
    • Call waiting times were not controllable as these were dependant on many determinants such as complexity of each call, language barriers and vulnerability of the caller; and
    • Emergency reports needed to be made to 999 (rather than a text-based system) to enable proper assessment and prioritisation of response resources to take place. During the assessment period, assurance was given that police resources were simultaneously deployed. Non-emergency reports should be made to 101 or online. The availability of ‘walk-in’ reporting at police stations depended on resources and patrol duties.

• Members praised the work undertaken by the police within their available resources but stated that resources needed to increase. A cyclical link was identified between inadequate police resources, which led to a lack of public confidence in the reporting of crime due to low response rates, and which then further impacted negatively on resources.
  • Inspector Dickinson agreed with the assessment and added that extra resources were sought where possible, and support had been received from the British Transport Police (BTP) during recent shop closure operations. Further partnership working with forces was taking place.

• Members asked for more information regarding the Women’s Centre ‘Women RISE’.
  • The Community Safety Manager would share full details after the meeting however it was stated that women from the South Holland district were being supported through this service.

.

• Members referred to the public meeting(s) noted within the report and asked where this was held and how it was publicised.
  • The Community Safety Manager stated that the responsibility for the meeting was held by the Lincolnshire Community Safety Partnership and detailed within their annual report. The meetings were publicised by Lincolnshire County Council.

• Members were alarmed by the statistics relating to ‘domestic violence and rape’, and asked whether a breakdown of the specific types of incidents could be relayed.
  • Inspector Dickinson responded that a further breakdown of statistics was not possible in order to safeguard the confidentiality of individuals.

• Members whose wards were located on the county border were grateful that recent calls to the police had not been diverted to neighbouring counties.

AGREED:

a)    That the content of the report be noted; and

b)    That the comments of the members be noted as a focus for future reports.