Agenda item

The Committee will consider the Safer Buckinghamshire Strategy, a partnership strategy which will be considered and approved by Cabinet in May 2023.  Members will have the opportunity to discuss the priorities that have been identified and to understand the next steps, including how an action plan will be developed in order to implement the strategy effectively.

Contributors:

Cllr Steve Bowles, Cabinet Member for Communities

Gideon Springer, Head of Community Safety, Buckinghamshire Council

The Chairman welcomed Gideon Springer, Head of Community Safety, to the meeting, and invited Steve Bowles, Cabinet Member for Communities, to present the report.

During the presentation, the following key points were raised:

·       The Safer Buckinghamshire Plan for 2020/23 outlined the priorities of helping communities become more resilient; protecting vulnerable adults and children; addressing the impact of drugs, alcohol, and poor mental health; reducing levels of crime and harm; tackling domestic violence and abuse and dealing with offenders. The strategy required partner organisations to share skills, knowledge, and resource to ensure Buckinghamshire was a safer place to live, work and visit.

·       Over the past three years, the Council had launched its street warden team to cover both High Wycombe and Aylesbury town centres.

·       Buckinghamshire Council had been awarded accreditation as a Friends Against Scams organisation. The Council’s Community Safety Team were working alongside Thames Valley Police to establish a local multi-agency task and finish group to raise public awareness for fraud and scams.

·       The Safer Buckinghamshire Strategy 2023-2026 sets out five priorities:

1.      Neighbourhood Crime

2.      Anti-social Behaviour

3.      Serious Violence

4.      Violence against Women and Girls

5.      Exploitation of Vulnerable People

The following points were noted during the Committee’s discussion:

·       A Member raised concerns about the raising crime rate in High Wycombe, particularly in terms of drug dealing activity at the station. It was noted that the Council was actively working in partnership with Thames Valley Police to tackle this issue, predominantly through secret intelligence which train companies were informed about. The British Transport Police were also involved, particularly in relation to the exploitation of vulnerable people.

·       Currently, no statistical information about the exploitation of vulnerable young people was available due to the difficulty of evidencing such crimes. Many young people would not share such experiences due to fear of reprisals. However, there was a national referral mechanism for this issue which also kept a record of the number of referrals at a national level.

·       The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCP) provided a community safety grant of circa £450,000 per year, which was guaranteed for up to a three-year period. After this time, the funding could be reduced as the current PCC’s tenure would also end after three years. This would impact the services offered. The Cabinet Member assured the Committee that he would lobby to keep the funding in place in the future. The PCC was also a member of the Safer Buckinghamshire Board, which reviewed all grant and funding applications. The PCC received quarterly reports about how their funds were spent.

·       The Community Safety Board aligned their strategy with the Opportunity Bucks strategy to focus on wards with high crime rates. High crime wards did not exactly align with Opportunity Bucks wards, but they were in close geographical proximity. A key priority was to focus on reducing crime and antisocial behaviour in those wards in partnership with the police. Small working groups had been set up to identify how to improve crime rates in these areas, in line with the strategic priorities, which were developed through a community safety survey and strategic needs assessment. Consultation with the public was held at all stages of developing the strategy, which would be reviewed once a year. Although public confidence in the police was noted as an issue, the police were a key partner in ensuring public safety.

·       Street wardens were visible representatives of the Council who were able to interact with communities and deal with issues such as littering, graffiti, and antisocial behaviour. They recently received additional powers to issue Fixed Penalty Notices once additional community safety training had been completed. However, Fixed Penalty Notices were viewed as a last resort. Funding for these roles in Aylesbury and High Wycombe was in place until next year.

·       Members noted that the visible presence of street wardens was an effective way of reducing crimes and discouraging anti-social behaviour. Whilst there was currently no funding available to provide street wardens in other towns, the charity Heart of Bucks provided funding for work on early intervention and prevention activities with vulnerable and young people.

·       The police had been struggling with the number of staff in neighbourhood teams for the past year. The PCC launched a new strategy in which they committed to having twice the number of officers in neighbourhoods around Thames Valley. However, the recruitment process was long, and most vacancies were for 12-month contracts, leading to high turnovers.

·       A Member suggested that Town and Parish Councils could also fund street wardens where needed. It was noted that if Town and Parish Councils were to recruit street wardens, a commitment to long-term funding for these roles (at least three years) was necessary. Mr Springer also advised that adequate management and training were important considerations and that performance measures would also need to be discussed.

·       Members raised concerns about the effectiveness of CCTV cameras. However, it was noted that when used in areas of high crime, they increased prosecution and conviction rates. A review around the use of CCTV was currently being prepared to inform the future direction of travel with the installation of CCTV across the county.  The PCC was keen on developing a Thames Valley-wide network but there was currently no funding to support this.

·       In response to a question regarding the membership of the Safer Buckinghamshire Board, Members were advised that Community Safety Partnerships were defined through the Crime Disorder Act, and South Central Ambulance Services (SCAS) was not identified as a strategic partner. However, ambulance personnel do have a lot of contact with vulnerable people and anonymised data regarding injuries was provided by SCAS to inform the needs assessment which underpins the strategy. to

·       A member asked if community payback could be used as a way of cleaning up litter and graffiti etc to improve the public realm for everyone, but it was noted that this wasn’t always feasible due to a lack of resources to supervise this activity.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member and Mr Springer for their attendance and contribution to the meeting. She requested that an annual report on the delivery of the strategy could be shared with the Committee in the coming year.