Agenda item

Report as attached.

Councillor Kimberley Whitehead, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Culture, Heritage and Arts submitted a report to the Communities and Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committee to inform them of the work on the Community Safety Partnership in the borough.  The report included appendices as follows:

 

Appendix 1 – CSP Structures

Appendix 2 – Hyndburn District Needs Assessment

Appendix 3 – Serious Violence Profile – Hyndburn

 

The Committee was requested to review the work of the Community Safety Partnership and to suggest areas of improvement.

 

Councillor Whitehead reported that the Community Safety Partnership was an important feature of the network of partnerships that helped to tackle crime and reduce reoffending and had been set up under Sections 5-7 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.  This had placed a statutory duty on a number of responsible authorities to work in partnership to reduce crime and disorder and these included:

 

-        Lancashire Police

-        Hyndburn Borough Council

-        Lancashire County Council

-        Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service

-        Clinical Commissioning Group

-        National Probation Service

 

She also informed the meeting of the structure of the Partnership including a Lancashire Community Safety Partnership, a Pennine Lancashire Community Safety Partnership and Hyndburn’s Community Safety Partnership.  She briefly set out the structure for each partnership and informed the Committee that the Hyndburn CSP was chaired by the Council’s Head of Policy and Organisational Development and that much of the work was co-ordinated by the Community Safety Manager. 

 

Councillor Whitehead informed the Committee that the Hyndburn CSP priorities were:

 

Environmental Crime

Violent Crime

Acquisitive Crime

Youth Related Crime

Organised Crime

 

Information was provided on how each priority was tackled, the multi-agency operations that Hyndburn had benefited from, serious violence duty, domestic homicide reviews, community cohesion and resilience, crime and disorder, road safety and Lancashire Talking.  The Committee was also referred to the information appended to the report for further details on the district needs assessment and the serious violence profile of Hyndburn.

 

The Committee submitted a number of questions in advance of the meeting.  These were responded to by the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources, the Community Safety Manager and the Head of Policy and Organisational Development, as follows:

 

1.     With reference to 3.10 of the report and Hyndburn’s local CSP priorities, Members had requested an explanation regarding the priority categories and why youth related crime was a separate category.

Response – youth related crime had its own category due to the Serious Violence duty to tackle youth related violence.  The Committee was informed that crime involving young people varied, as well as most victims of serious crime, also being young people.  Action was taken to prevent this and the escalation of crime.  Anti-social behaviour traversed across all priorities and varied in type.  It was, therefore, captured in all CSP priorities.

 

2.     Was there any formal tally of estimated unreported crimes?

 

Response - the CSP gauged the levels of unreported crime and incidents through member contribution and through ‘Lancashire Talking’ surveys of residents and from this information they created their priorities.  The Partnership also encouraged the reporting of crimes but understood the reasons why people did not report crimes/incidents. Both domestic abuse and hate crime were considered unreported but there was great Charity work which supported these areas.  There was no formal number of unreported crimes.

 

Member Questions:

 

·        How the surveys were carried out.

 

Responses:  Surveys were carried out online and partners were used effectively.

 

Members suggested:

-        Placing promotions, in relation to domestic violence, in ladies toilets.

-        that paper copies of any surveys were placed in libraries so that elderly people and people without access to technology, also had the opportunity to feedback.

-        Jean Battle, reported that the Over 50’s Forum would like to become a partner or feedback to the CSP. 

 

Inspector Lorgat referred to signing up more third party reporting centres.  He explained that there was no criteria attached to becoming a third party reporting centre and that individuals could also do it.  

 

3.     Drug related crime was a key issue so why was it not listed as a priority?

 

Response – Drug related crime fell under the priority of Organised Crime and traversed across youth-related crime and the Serious Violence duty.  This linked to the way the Police recorded their data.  Inspector Lorgat gave an overview of how the Police dealt with organised crime and reassured the Committee that drug related crime was very much a priority. 

 

Member Questions:

 

-        Could Councillors be kept informed of intelligence relating to drug dealing within their wards?

-        Concern about shops selling vapes and Turkish barbers being used as a cover for crimes.

 

Response:

 

-        Intelligence was sensitive and graded but once a warrant had been executed this would be shared on social media.

-        Councillors should share any information they have with the Police, in relation to businesses being a cover for crimes.

 

Advanced questions 4 – 7 and question 10 could not be responded to as these were issues that the Community Safety Partnership did not have responsibility for.

 

8.   Do the areas with the greatest number of HMOs correlate with the areas with the highest level of crime?

 

            Response – Most HMOs were primarily in commercial districts, however, there was a piece of work currently looking at how policies could be reviewed, in respect of managing these processes more effectively.  The work involved the creation of a national register.

 

            Member Questions:

 

-        Concern about HMOs opening in the location of schools and family homes due to individuals being unknown and largely single males.

-        Request for resident involvement on the CSP to enable effective feedback and community engagement from all areas of the community.

 

            Responses: 

 

-        The concern was noted and, in respect of greater community engagement in the CSP, the Committee was informed that surveys were being held and feedback was taken from these.  In addition, the link with the Neighbourhood Policing Team and Councillors was also very beneficial.  The Neighbourhood Watch Scheme was still running but not as popular as it had been.

-        The Police reported on the value and importance of feedback from the community and how they were trying to create communication channels to enable this.  He indicated that working with the community was of great value.

 

9.1Has the closure of youth clubs had an impact on anti-social behaviour and is this considered when setting priorities on how to prevent anti-social behaviour?

 

      Response – Hyndburn had a great youth offer with all areas covered by outreach services and charity-led diversionary activities.  They had recently won a CAP Award for innovation in tackling issues with disadvantaged youth.  Hyndburn was also the highest level bidder for funding for youth services across the district and had large levels of young people who were funded through further and higher education.  Work was also carried out with schools to engage youths in decision making.

 

Members comments:

 

-        Many youth clubs had closed so there had been an impact on anti-social behaviour.

-        The pandemic had impacted many youth who were now fearful of being in large groups.

 

Responses:

-        Youth Clubs had been run by volunteers and were now moving around targeting areas of need.  As mentioned previously, there was already a good offering of youth activities in Hyndburn.

 

11.  After the Home Office review of Community Safety Partnerships in 2023/24, how has the CSP improved their transparency, accountability and effectiveness or how is it planning to do this?

 

       Response – The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) together with Lancashire County Council (LCC) were leading on the recommendations from the Review.  In Hyndburn, surveys are undertaken to gauge public opinion and promote good practice. 

 

       Member Comments:

 

-        Concern that residents did not feel included and, consequently, were unable to feedback, especially, elderly residents or residents who were unable to use technology to communicate.

 

Responses:

-        Community Champions were being considered by Lancashire County Council.

-        The Community Action Network (CAN) were used to feed resident’s views back to the CSP.

 

12.Have the CSP given consideration to devolution and how this may impact their structures and priorities going forward?

 

      Response – Hyndburn was part of the Pennine-wide Community Safety Partnership that encompassed Burnley, Pendle, Blackburn with Darwen and Rossendale where localised structures and processes were already in place for smooth transition to devolution.  All Pennine locations had shared priorities to assist with the development of a devolved partnership going forward and therefore, there should be a smooth transition.

 

Resolved                    -  That the report be noted: and

 

-      That, the Chief Officer of YNOT Aspire, informs the Community Action Network (CAN) of the request from other local organisations, to join and be included in feedback to the Community Safety Partnership.