Minutes from the previous meetings were agreed
as a true and accurate record.
65/16
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Share this item
To receive any
declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in
respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes:
·
In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary
Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the
interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil
partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or
wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were
civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest.
·
Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the
Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
·
Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests
disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register.
·
Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item
where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest.
The Chairman informed
the Board that a number of recommendations were in progress and
remained outstanding, these concerned the letter to the Chief
Coroner and the recommendations in relation to the Performance
& Finance Sub-Group, of which the latter were on hold until
budgetary planning was agreed by Cabinet.
There was a
discussion around the Armed Forces Covenant (AFC). Surrey County
Council’s Armed Forces Champion asked the Board to consider
whether risks to armed forces personnel should be included within
the Council’s risk assessments that each Board/Committee
receives as part of the Council’s decision making process.
The Chairman advised the request should be looked into by
Democratic Services, to see whether it was possible to implement,
or whether the Board could take an item on the subject in the
future
One Member
highlighted that there were three outstanding
recommendations for the Library Task
Group and whether the item should come back to the Board to help
accelerate the pace and development. The Chairman explained the
Task Group had been very busy over the summer, where visits were
made to a variety of library branches across the County. The Board
were informed that the Task Group intended to meet very soon and
would be happy to bring their initial findings back to the Board as
an interim report. The Cabinet Member
for Localities and Community was pleased to note that the Libraries
Task Group was making progress and welcomed any contribution from
Members of the Task Group. The Task Group commended the work and
dedication of the volunteers supporting Surrey’s Community
Partnered Libraries, and recognised that their hard work was a
contribution to the successful running of the ongoing library
service.
The Board reviewed
the forward work plan and were given notice that the next Resident
Experience Board will be held at the Surrey History Centre in
October, the schedule for this meeting was being finalised and
would be circulated to Members in due course.
Actions:
Interim Report to be
added to the Board’s Forward Work Programme.
Purpose of the report:The Police and Justice Act 2006 requires local authorities to
undertake annual scrutiny of Community Safety Partnerships
(CSPs). Subsequent guidance suggests,
but does not mandate that in two tier authority areas
district/borough and county councils should work together to
develop a collaborative approach to the scrutiny of community
safety issues.
In
Surrey, district and borough councils fulfil the duty to scrutinise
local community safety partnership plans. The County Council’s Resident Experience
Board will therefore scrutinise the work of the overarching
strategic Community Safety Board (CSB).
This
paper sets out the current responsibilities of the County Community
Safety Board and informs the Committee of current county-wide
priorities and activity that has taken place to address them during
2015/16.
Joanna Grimshaw, Anti Social Behaviour Manager, Surrey
Police
Chief Inspector Nolan Heather,
Surrey Police
Jane Last, Head of Community Partnerships &
Safety
Gordon Falconer, Community Safety Manager
Louise Gibbins, Community Safety Officer
Key
points raised during the discussion:
An Officer introduced
the report by outlining that as a two tier authority, Surrey has
the Community Safety Board (CSB) and a network of Community Safety
Partnerships (CSP). The CSPs operate at Borough and District level
and their work has an emphasis on local issues. On the other hand
the CSB oversees the strategic elements of Community Safety.
Membership of the CSB is wide and includes District and Borough
representation, allowing the link between the local level and
strategic level to integrate.
The Board was advised
that annually the CSB sets its county wide community safety
priorities which implements action on the ground at District and
Borough level, managed by a coordinating group who have a strategy
and action plan to deliver their priority. Mental health was
identified as one of the key issues arising from these priorities
and notable work was undertaken to deliver the action plan during
the past year.
An Officer informed
the Board of the ongoing work in implementing the new legislation
within the Anti Social Behaviour Crime & Policing Act 2014,
delivering a framework from the strategic level to the CSPs. Case
studies provided in the report [Item 8] showed the work being
carried out had made a difference for Surrey residents.
The Chairman invited
witnesses and wanted to explore how the police service deals with
issues mentioned above on the front line. The Anti Social
Behavioural Manager from Surrey Police explained how the CSB allows
work to be escalated on the operational side, giving opportunities
that were not available before, allowing work to be carried out
with a smarter approach. There were concerns around the absence of
professionals in multi agency meetings and that this area would
need improvement so there is no disconnect.
The Community Safety
Officer referred to the new legislation,Anti
Social BehaviourCrime and Policing Act, and
assured the Board it gave the service the opportunity to deal with
Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) in a more modern, efficient and
appropriate way. The Officer highlighted that there were plans to
get the victims voice in the agenda, as Officers recognised that it
was not being identified at most levels, especially at low level
incidents which still had huge impacts.
The Chief Inspector
shared the concerns and emphasised front line services were more
focused on the offenders than the victims. They suggested that the
work of the CSB around this strategic priority of ASB will help
Surrey Police to adapt to provide better support for victims, the
people who are suffering whilst placing more accountability on
those who are the cause.
The Cabinet Associate
for Community Safety Services agreed with the witnesses, that there
was room for improvement in supporting victims of ASB. In terms of
collaboration, the Cabinet ...
view the full minutes text for item 69/16
Purpose of the report:To inform the Residents Experience Board of partnership
activity, led by the Community Safety Board, to tackle Anti Social
Behaviour across Surrey, and how work at the county strategic level
translates into local delivery, leading to better outcomes for the
residents of Surrey.
Joanna Grimshaw, Anti Social Behaviour Manager, Surrey
Police
Chief Inspector Nolan Heather,
Surrey Police
Jane Last, Head of Community Partnerships &
Safety
Gordon Falconer, Community Safety Manager
Louise Gibbins, Community Safety Officer
Key
points raised during the discussion:
An Officer began the
item by summarising key points of the report; referring to the Anti
Social Behaviour Crime & Policing Act 2014 as the trigger to
generating a renewed response to tackling ASB across Surrey in a
more efficient and practical way. The Officer explained work was
underway to tackle anti social behaviour (ASB) across Surrey to
provide better outcomes for the residents of Surrey.
One Member enquired
about dispersal orders, what the order involved and achieved, as it
was noted from Appendix four that these were used
frequently across the county. It was explained that a dispersal
order, under the new Act, was a tool that enables Police officers
to remove people, for example in the town centre for behaving anti
socially. Dispersal Orders allow the Police to order a person(s) to
leave an area if an anti social behavioural situation was about to
rise or was occurring. The Board were assured that a
proportionality test would be carried out before an Order is placed
to ensure that this power would not be abused and only used in
appropriate circumstances.
These circumstances
include;partnership
working with perpetrators,no knee jerk reactions, never issue for a ‘youth
issue/problem”and the order hasto be very objective i.e. what’s the harm/risk
to perpetrators vs benefit to other
residents.
The Members of the
Board requested more information on what resources where available
to residents to promote how residents can contact regarding ASB.
The Board were notified that there was a website which contained
all the necessary information and links were also in place to
direct the user to the district or borough that concerned them.
Members’ implied there was a need for information to be more
accessible, in terms of other advertising material and Officers
assured this was a working progress.
The Chairman queried
what information was available in the public domain and if not what
measures were being carried out to convey the message to residents.
Officers explainedThey discussed a map of
ASB incidents which was based solely on police data (therefore may
not be full picture) but was not publically accessible
There was a
discussion around reasonability and how people’s perception
differ in their views with what was acceptable and not acceptable
behaviour. A Member highlighted that Anti Social Behaviour is
usually associated with young people but in reality it’s not
the case. Officers clarified that young people were not the biggest
proportion of offenders and pointed out that the public often
confuse ASB with nuisance and this is why young people are commonly
mistaken for the main offenders. It was addressed that more work
needed to be done on promoting a distinction between ASB and
nuisance, so residents are clear ...
view the full minutes text for item 70/16
Purpose of the report:Policy Development and Review
(i) To provide the Board with an
update on the performance and relevance of the general voluntary,
community and faith sector (VCFS) infrastructure organisations
co-commissioned by the County Council, Boroughs and District
Councils and Clinical Commissioning Groups and the important
contribution of the VCFS in general.
(ii)
To share with the Board the work of the ‘Driving Up
Volunteering Across Surrey’ project.
Rachael Crossley,
Assistant Director (Chief of Staff)
Key
points raised during the discussion:
In introducing the
report, the Officer highlighted that on the whole the sector was
doing well. There has been an increase in volunteers from the
previous two years and the results from the independent survey of
users of the infrastructure organisations were positive, indicating
that 92% were highly satisfied with the Councils for Voluntary
Services (CVSs) and how additional funds were secured into the
area.
Although the
infrastructure organisations was showing positive good work, the
Officer outlined sustainability as one of the main concerns. The
organisations were working to tackle this problem by seeking
further collaborations and ways of working to support further
efficiencies and create a sustainable infrastructure
base.
A Member sought more
information on the relationship between the CVSs and corporate
organisations. The Officer was pleased to address the Board that
Surrey County Council has a strong connection with local businesses
and last year alone, the infrastructure organisations facilitated a
hundred events with over 1,600 individuals from businesses engaged
in volunteer activity. In addition the Board were informed of an
event that would take place next week called ‘We are
Surrey’, aimed at inspiring businesses to support their local
communities.
One Member expressed
concern with the continuance of volunteers through the generations,
as a great number were older and that category would be lost soon.
The Officer explained that they are trying to reach out and engage
with young people through targeted projects and also looking at
opportunities to encourage inter-generational
volunteering.
There was a
discussion around the funding which was distributed amongst the
infrastructure groups as Members wanted to know why different
amounts were given to different groups, as outlined in Annex A. The Officer explained that figures were different
as certain groups had merged and covered larger areas, subsequently
changing the amount that they were be allocated to reflect the
efficiencies of scale.
Reference was made to
the unemployed and a Member encouraged individuals who were in this
category to consider volunteering as a route back into work,
developing new skills and strengthening their CVs with additional
experience.
The Vice Chairman
conveyed to the Board that money could be a barrier for some
individuals volunteering, emphasising that that there could be a
possibility that some people would like to volunteer but cannot
afford it. The Officer noted this concern and the importance of
ensuring money is not an obstacle, and assured the Board that this
would be tackled by analysing the issue and understanding what is
required to further support these individuals.
Recommendations:
a)The Board requests an end of project report on the
Driving up Volunteering Project.
b)The Board requests for officers to provide
promotional materials to all Members and.
c)The Board recommends all Members to share
information with local residents through all appropriate channels
available.
72/16
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
Share this item
The next meeting of the Board will be held at
the Surrey History Centre on Thursday 13 October 2016.
PDF 183 KB