Agenda item

The Portfolio Holder for Localism and Big Society will be in attendance to provide an update report on community safety and how it is being delivered through the various tiers of Groups and Panels (including the East Lincs CSP and newly formed Lincolnshire CSP).  (A copy of the minutes of the Panel meeting of 15 October 2013, where the last update was received, is enclosed).

The Portfolio Holder for Localism and Big Society was in attendance to provide an update report on community safety and how it was being delivered through the various tiers of Groups and Panels (including the East Lincs CSP and newly formed Lincolnshire CSP).

The Portfolio Holder advised of the following issues:

·        There had been a significant reduction (approximately 50%) in street drinking, mainly in the Spalding town centre.  There had been a specific  Police action directed at the Spalding town centre. The Police were now reducing the amount of time spent on this project, but would be monitoring the situation.

·        The work of the Street Pastors was continuing on Friday nights, and was being well received by the public.  £3,333 of funding had been received from the Police and Crime Commissioner.

·        New Anti-Social Behaviour legislation was being introduced from 1 October 2014.  The main change was that DPPOs (Designated Public Places Orders) were to be replaced by Public Space Protection Orders.  They effectively banned the drinking of alcohol in public spaces.  They could be used to deal with issues of consumption of alcohol in public places, but there had to be a good reason to issue them.  They could not be issued solely by the Authority, agreement was required from the Police.  A county-wide group had been set up to deal with the introduction of the new legislation, so that it could be operated effectively from October.

·        A Community Trigger initiative was being piloted in the West Lindsey area.  This dealt with issues of Anti Social Behaviour reported to the local Authority or the Police.  If the public felt that, after reporting an incidence of anti social behaviour, that it was not being dealt with, a petition could be circulated.  Should enough signatures be gathered, this would create a community trigger for action.  Councillor Worth advised that although West Lindsey was piloting this initiative, there had not been much response to it.  He advised that he would send the information, together with a link, to members of the Panel.

·        If car occupiers threw rubbish out of the window of their vehicles, and this was picked up on PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) cameras anywhere around the country, new legislation now allowed for them to be prosecuted.

·        The East Lincolnshire Community Safety Partnership would be keeping the priorities it had already identified – Anti-Social Behaviour; Violent Crime;  Community Cohesion; and theft from shops and of cycles.

Following the update, the Panel considered the information and the following issues were raised:

·        Had the fact that there had been a specific Police action directed at the Spalding town centre in relation to street drinking simply driven the problem elsewhere? 

o       The Portfolio Holder commented that this could be the case, and that any problems had to be reported so that action could be taken.

·        Problems with street drinking had been identified at Green Lane in Spalding – what was being done about this?

o       The Portfolio Holder advised that the street cleaning team was visiting the area more regularly, and the situation was being monitored on a regular basis.

·        What action was the Police taking against foreign nationals who persistently caused problems drinking in the streets?

o       There was regular contact with the UK Border Agency, and good links between the Police, the Council and the Trading Standards Department.  If continual drinking was a problem, and the individual was not seeking or obtaining work, they would be sent to their country of origin, and this had already been done with some individuals.

·        At the last meeting, reference had been made to rural crime.  Were there any arrangements in place to deal with illegal raves, a number of which had taken place in the area?

o       The Portfolio Holder advised that the Police had a specific operation to target raves.  They were receiving particular intelligence, and were speaking to farmers.

·        What would happen if somebody found a rave taking place on their property? Were there responsibilities under the Public Health Act?

o       Potentially there could be responsibilities.  Much of the response to raves was gaining intelligence and trying to stop them occurring before they happened.

·        At the last meeting, increased powers for PCSOs had been discussed.  What had been the outcome?

o       The Portfolio Holder reported that all District Councils had agreed to the additional powers that had been requested.

·        At the last meeting, the new legislation relating to scrap metal dealers had been discussed.  Was there any data indicating that it had stopped any illegal activity?

o       The Portfolio Holder did not have this information but advised that he would find out and forward the information on to the Panel.

·        Had there been any prosecutions in respect of dog control/dog fouling reported by PCSOs?

o       The Portfolio Holder did not have this information but advised that he would find out and forward the information on to the Panel.

·        The poor state of the road surface of the A16 between Crowland and Cowbit could be a cause of future accidents. How could this concern be fed back?

o       Councillor Worth commented that he would advise the relevant Portfolio Holder at Lincolnshire County Council.

AGREED:

a)     That the update provided by the Portfolio Holder for Localism and Big Society be noted; and

b)     That any information the Portfolio Holder could not provide at the meeting be sent to Panel members in due course.