Issue - meetings

For the Panel to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.

Note:

The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (15 September 2022).

Witnesses: 

Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner

Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Surrey Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner

Damian Markland, Head of Performance and Governance (Office of Police and Crime Commissioner)

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.    One question was received from Cllr John Furey and no supplementary questions were asked.

2.    One question was received from Cllr Keith Witham. The Panel Member clarified that his question was in reference to local roads and explained that he would be grateful for any further support. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC) assured the Panel that she was against road racing. The DPCC was not aware of those specific cases, however, offered to look at them outside of the meeting.

3.    One question was received from Cllr Mick Gillman. The Panel Member noted that residents would disagree that the Force did act quickly and appropriately. The PCC explained that the Force had to ensure that the police officers were kept safe when getting protestors down from the gantry. Sometimes the protestors would play dead which made it more difficult to remove them at pace. Road closures were an issue for National Highways. The PCC emphasised that she fully supported Surrey Police’s approach to the protests and felt that they had dealt with the issue well.

4.    Two questions were received from Cllr Paul Kennedy. A Panel Member queried when the response inspection to the inspection results would be published. The Head of Performance and Governance shared that there was a formal 56-day return which was likely to be available in late December. The response to the Casey report was expected in two weeks. A Panel Member asked whether there were any remaining backlogs of the service level agreements. The PCC responded she would check with the Force.

Actions/requests for further information:

1. R26/22 – The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to confirm whether there are any remaining backlogs of the service level agreements.   

For the Panel to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.

Note:

The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (20 September 2022).

Witness:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. A Panel Member congratulated the PCC on behalf of the Panel for her Office which won two of the five Home Office/Police Tilley awards and thanked her for supporting the projects.

2. A Panel Member asked whether the PCC could investigate the consistency of the approach taken across the county for unauthorised encampments. The PCC explained that the Force worked closely with local authorities when an unauthorised encampment occurred and the County Council continued to look into the provision of a transit site. There was a running issue around traveller encampments. The guidelines were recently issued around the new laws. The area was still complicated though. The PCC shared that Inspector Dean was willing to produce a report on this area and to provide a briefing to the Panel.

Actions/requests for further information:

1. R21/22 – The Panel support officers to liaise with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to organise a report and briefing on unauthorised encampments.

For the Panel to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.

Note:

The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (31 January 2022).

Witness:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer – OPCC

Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC

Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. A Panel Member asked for the total costs incurred by the abandoned project to move the Force’s headquarters to Leatherhead and whether any value could be retrieved for the benefit of the Force or the Leatherhead community. The Chief Finance Officer (CFO) explained that the responses to the Member’s questions were under question 46 and 47 of the supplementary agenda. The CFO explained that the total spend on the project so far was £1.5 million, which had been charged as revenue over a number of years. The senior responsible officer had provided a list of areas where the consultancy work could be reused. The Chairman noted the upcoming visit to Mount Browne for Panel Members to receive an informal briefing on the project.

2. A Panel Member asked about the review of Surrey Police’s CCTV strategy, as well as the revenue and capital expenditure included in the proposed budget for CCTV monitoring and infrastructure. The CFO responded that there was £800,000 in the revenue budget for CCTV for the whole of the county and there was nothing in the capital budget for CCTV. Funding was not allocated on a district and borough basis and the OPCC was working with district and borough councils to secured funding for CCTV, such as from the Community Infrastructure Levy. The PCC added that this topic was covered in the recent performance and accountability meeting.

3. A Panel Member requested information on the use of CCTV by Surrey Police and expressed his view that the Force’s contributions were not proportionate to  the investment of district and borough councils. The PCC responded that there had been conversations at the Surrey councils Leader’s Group around CCTV, where it was a standing agenda item. The PCC explained that the provision and funding of CCTV was not a cost to be borne by the Police alone and a county-wide approach was required, with the Districts and Boroughs leading it. The Vice-Chairman raised that this was a burden which had been increasingly shifted onto the Districts and Boroughs and there would be an advantage to having a clear policy across Surrey between the Police and Districts and Boroughs.

4. A Panel Member highlighted that other Police Forces around the country held a register of residents who had ‘Ring Video Doorbells’ and personal CCTV. The PCC shared that Surrey Police did not maintain such a register but frequently used both personal and commercial CCTV footage and agreed with the usefulness of Ring doorbell footage. A Panel Member asked whether there would be a CCTV register, as he was aware of local issues around accessing CCTV from different sources. The Chairman suggested that this point could be raised at the Leader’s Group.  

5. A Panel Member asked whether Surrey Police would operate a similar system to Kent Police whereby  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7