Agenda item

The Select Committee will receive an update on the work of the Anti-Social Behaviour team, to better understand their role and responsibilities and the impact of their work across Buckinghamshire. 

Contributors:

Cllr Arif Hussain, Cabinet Member for Communities

Gideon Springer, Head of Community Safety

Abdul Rahim, Community Safety Manager (Operational)

The Chairman welcomed Gideon Springer, Head of Community Safety and Abdul Rahim, Community Safety Manager to the meeting.

The Head of Community Safety introduced the report, making the following key points:

• In 2014 the Government had changed the definition of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) to put the emphasis on the victim’s perception. This meant that ASB could be difficult to define and could cover a wide range of behaviours and actions. ASB could affect an individual and the environment.
• Various bodies could help tackle ASB, including social landlords and charity partners. Buckinghamshire Council did not have a response service – urgent complaints were dealt with by the police. Street wardens employed by the Council, worked in High Wycombe and new wardens were being recruited for Aylesbury.
• For low level ASB, informal means were used to resolve problems. The ASB Action Group (ASBAG) dealt with more complex cases. The vulnerability of victims was taken into account. ASB had led to some victims taking their own lives so risk assessments were carried out.
• The victim could ask for an ASB case to be reviewed. If the complaint was about the Council, the Police and Crime Commissioner would appoint an external reviewer, otherwise the Council would set up a Panel to investigate if the ASB case had been dealt with properly. This year only 1 case had been reviewed which showed that partners were dealing with ASB at an early stage. The Safer Bucks Board has oversight of ASB case reviews.
• Year to date there had been 147 reports of ASB and 135 resolved complaints. Not all reports of ASB would progress to an ASB case as they could be signposted to parking or waste colleagues or to Thames Valley Police.  Of 124 new ASB cases, 72 were considered at the ASBAG, where different approaches to resolving ASB would be discussed with partners.  One injunction had been issued and two Community Protection Notices (CPN).
• Buckinghamshire was below the national average for ASB cases and crime in general and compared favourably with Milton Keynes and Oxford in the last year.

In response to questions and during subsequent discussions, the following main points were noted:

• There were only 3 officers dealing with ASB but a number of teams and partners have been involved, for example to combat fly tipping.
• Referrals from members of the public could be made via the Buckinghamshire Council website and were then triaged by the team. Any partner agency, whether internal or external, could refer.
• People could also ask for ASB case referrals via the website. Often repeated problems were due to a person’s mental health issues. This behaviour could be very challenging to deal with and relied on the involvement of mental health services.
• It was important to strengthen communications with the police and other agencies. The Head of Community Safety would be happy to arrange meetings with members. He stated that the most challenging problems needed a creative, multi-agency approach. The Cabinet Member for Communities explained that member seminars would continue to be offered.
• ASB cases which result in the victim being reasonably satisfied were shown as resolved. The police service deals with criminal cases. Much of ASB was low-level crime and when this was dealt with by the police, the council will work with the Police, but the criminal matter will take priority.
• The fall in the number of case reviews was a consequence of better communications between the Council, Police and Housing Associations to resolve problems sooner. If the ASBAG team dealt with a case review, the procedure was costly and time-consuming so the team focussed on resolving ASB earlier so that reviews could be avoided.
• The Community Safety Manager agreed to record more data on unresolved cases and those which had taken a long time to resolve.
• The Head of Community Safety explained that the police service would have ASB figures by ward and offered to request the data.

ACTION: Community Safety Manager

• As far as responsibilities of Town and Parish councils were concerned, the Crime and Disorder Act was vague, stating that a council should do “all they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder”.
• CCTV was not a panacea and could shift ASB to another area. It had been better to tackle the underlying causes of ASB but these initiatives, such as youth groups, largely depended on volunteers. There was a great deal of third sector work with young people supported by the council. The Cabinet Member for Communities pointed out it was always worth contacting Community Boards about ASB.
• A Member raised the issue of a business in Denham which was badly impacting residents. The Head of Community Safety explained that it was often difficult to catch a business in the act of causing a nuisance. Planning and environmental health legislation could help but it could be a lengthy process. He advised that those affected should continue to monitor the problem and collect evidence. It might help if the Member could speak to the business owners. Notices could be served on businesses which caused a nuisance but a strong standard of evidence was needed first.

The Chairman thanked the contributors for the presentation and their insight into ASB which had been very interesting.