Agenda and minutes
PDF 397 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 4BB
Contact: Amelia Christopher Email: amelia.christopher@surreycc.gov.uk
Note: Webcast link: https://guildford.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/619922
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chairman to report apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Mr Philip Walker, Councillor Valerie White and Councillor John Robini. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 15 SEPTEMBER 2021
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2021 as a correct record. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2021 were agreed as a true record of that meeting.
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter (i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or (ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting NOTES: · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest · As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) · Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none.
|
|
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (17 November 2021).
Note: A written response will be circulated to Panel Members and the questioner. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager, Surrey County Council (SCC) Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey Lisa Herrington - Head of Policy and Commissioning, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
One question was received from Zöe Franklin. The question and response can be found attached to these minutes as Annex A.
A supplementary question was asked by the Committee Manager (SCC) on behalf of Zöe Franklin who was unable to attend and the response can be found below.
• Supplementary question asked on behalf of Zöe Franklin:
While I thank the Police and Crime Commissioner for her response and the detail she has provided on local service uplifts in 2020/21 I am disappointed that she has not pressed the Government further on the delay to the information campaign. While I agree that it is important that any campaign gets the tone and content right, there are many excellent organisations that I’m sure would be willing to work with the Government to deliver the campaign given the clear urgency of it.
In terms of a supplementary question, I note that the PCC has not indicated whether the new trauma informed training will be inclusive of the trans community – despite my specific reference in the question. I would be grateful if she could outline how inclusivity of trans people, and other members of the LGBTQI+ community, is being ensured and who are the external experts providing the training?
Response:
The PCC noted that she had been liaising with the Home Secretary, the Minister for Crime and Policing and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners’ (APCC) National lead for Victims and Serious Organised Crime; there was an enormous amount of work going on to address Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG).
The Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC) explained that:
· Surrey Police (the Force) had a rolling programme of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) training to raise awareness and improve responses for all minority communities including the trans community. There was regular input from those communities in delivering the training, consisting of both formal and informal sessions and it was important to build a culture in an organisation fostering a greater understanding of the needs of all communities. · The Force was innovative in terms of trauma-informed practice having invited Dr Kristine Hickle from the University of Sussex to help them be a trauma-informed force; through working with staff and officers who have experienced trauma in their role, then through delivering trauma-informed services.
The Chairman asked for a written response to be provided by the PCC.
Actions/further information to be provided:
1. R36/21 - The PCC will provide a written response to the supplementary question.
The Chairman noted that the Panel meeting would not be going into Part 2 for item 17 as the PCC would be providing a public statement; the Panel agreed that approach.
|
|
|
SURREY POLICE GROUP FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MONTH SIX FINANCIAL YEAR 2021/22
The purpose of this report is to inform the Police & Crime Panel of the Surrey Police Group (i.e. OPCC and Chief Constable combined) financial position as at 30th September 2021 as well as a prediction for the situation at the end of the year.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) introduced the report and noted: - revenue: that the predicted £300,000 underspend was primarily due to an underspend on payroll. - capital: that the £5.6 million underspend was due to the phasing of capital expenditure with investment pushed back to later in the year, for example around the Building the Future programme and ICT. - borrowing: that the Force had not entered into any additional borrowing other than that in relation to the borrowing for the purchase of the Leatherhead site several years ago. 2. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that a number of questions from Councillor Kennedy and one question from Mr Stilwell had been sent to him in advance of the meeting along with the Panel’s key lines of enquiry; the Chairman and Panel were in agreement that those be included in the minutes along with the written responses at Annex B - verbal responses to some are noted below. 3. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) responded to Mr Stilwell’s question sent in advance around the expenditure on the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership (SSCP), noting that the budget will be increased to reflect the additional income raised from the SSCP so it would not be over budget going forward. 4. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) responded to the Panel’s key lines of enquiry concerning: overtime, borrowing capital investment, delayed capital investments and efficiencies. Regarding efficiencies, he noted that the largest cost to the Force was people and hence wages. As police officer numbers were ringfenced, due to the Government uplift programme, any reduction in costs would affect police staff in back office roles, the Contact Centre, forensics and custody. The Force was working on minimising the impact of those reductions and more would be known with the upcoming financial settlement from the Government. The Finance Sub-Group will be updated on the matter. 5. Councillor Kennedy thanked the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) for providing written responses to his questions in due course; of the questions he submitted he asked: - why police officer pay for the first six months was more than 50% of the budget/forecast, yet for the full year there would be an underspend? - In response, the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that in the first half of the year a police pension top up payment was made distorting the figures. This was underwritten by the Government and matched by a grant hence should not have a bearing on the outturn at year end. - why transport costs for the first six months were less than 50% of the budget/forecast, yet for the full year there would be an overspend? - In response, the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that in the first six months the Force benefited from free fuel from BP and due to Covid-19 there was less travelling. That said, costs were forecasted ... view the full minutes text for item 84/21 |
|
The purpose of this report is to inform the Surrey Police and Crime Panel of the OPCC’s financial performance at Month 6 for the 2021/22 financial year together with an estimate of the year end outturn against budget.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) Alison Bolton - Chief Executive (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) introduced the report, highlighting a slight underspend at the end of the year which reflected the £150,000 virement from reserves made earlier in the year. 2. The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that a number of questions from Councillor Kennedy along with the Panel’s key lines of enquiry had been sent to him in advance of the meeting; the Chairman and Panel were in agreement that those be included in the minutes along with the written responses at Annex B - verbal responses to some are noted below. 3. Councillor Kennedy highlighted the £6,000 underspend in the budget which was as a result of the £150,000 virement reserves, seeking clarification that without that there would be a deficit of £143,817. - The Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) responded that there would have been a deficit had there not been that £150,000 virement, noting that the OPCC would not have made that expenditure had it not been able to fund it from reserves. 4. Councillor Kennedy noted that it was apparent from the figures that the Deputy PCC (DPCC) costs to date and forecast were much higher than one might expect on a pro rata basis, given a reported appointment in early July; he asked whether the pay had been backdated, and if so, from when and on what legal authority. - In response, the Chief Executive (OPCC) explained that the DPCC’s pay was backdated on a part-time basis for the hours put in prior to the confirmation hearing. - The Chief Executive explained that the DPCC had a contract with the OPCC which was finalised following the confirmation hearing, the PCC was in agreement that because Ellie Vesey-Thompson undertook considerable work prior to the confirmation hearing, it was fair and reasonable to backdate her pay. 5. Mr Stilwell asked why there was a large difference between the budget and the forecast for the grants of commissioned Victim Services. - In response, the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) explained that when the budget was set the OPCC had to estimate what the Government grant amount would be, however it had come in higher than expected. In addition, during the year the OPCC was successful in applying and being awarded a number of grants hence increasing the level of spend significantly higher than originally budgeted.
RESOLVED:
The Panel noted and commented on the report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
DRAFT POLICE AND CRIME PLAN 2021-2025
This report introduces the draft Police and Crime Plan 2021-2025 for comment from the Surrey Police and Crime Panel.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey Johanna Burne - Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC) Ellie Vesey-Thompson - Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey Lisa Herrington - Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The PCC noted than an enormous amount of work went into producing the detailed draft Police and Crime Plan 2021-2025 (the draft Plan), following a series of consultations by the OPCC with members of the public, and community groups - of which there had been over thirty meetings. 2. The PCC explained that the draft Plan was worked on in consultation with the Chief Constable of Surrey Police and his office, it is a draft Plan that the Force felt it could deliver and the PCC noted that she was aiming to publish the draft Plan in the coming weeks. 3. The Chairman was disappointed that the Chief Constable’s foreword was not included in the draft Plan as that would have reassured the Panel that he supported the draft Plan. - In response, the PCC explained that the decision was taken not to include the Chief Constable’s foreword within the draft Plan as it would be included in the final published Plan pending the Panel’s comments, but that he has been engaged in the Plan’s development throughout and was supportive of this draft. 4. A Panel member noted that the draft Plan and priorities chosen broadly seemed reasonable as it was difficult not to disagree with the content as the draft Plan omitted measurables in which to assess the draft Plan’s successes or failures. - The Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC) responded to the comment on not including measurables in the draft Plan noting that a Force balanced scorecard would be developed which would include a joint set of measurables for the Force and PCC. - The Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC) responded that there were no targets on crime recording set in the draft Plan as these could result in perverse incentives. For example, in some crimes there was historically underreporting, for example in areas such as domestic violence, rape and anti-social behaviour. The aim was to increase reporting in these areas which may in turn lead to increased numbers of crimes. The Force balanced scorecard would show the direction the Force was going in in terms of crime recording and would be provided at the next Panel meeting. 5. The Panel member commented that comparing the draft Plan with the previous Plan 2016-2021, Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) was a good addition, however noted absences of previous priorities concerning rural crime and value for money - he queried why those areas were no longer priorities. - In response, the PCC noted that she had considered a sixth priority regarding value for money but it was not included as a separate priority as ensuring value for money was an important tenet that ran throughout the draft Plan and the five priorities. ... view the full minutes text for item 86/21 |
|
|
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
This report sets out the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s understanding and approach to tackling and supporting victims of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in Surrey.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Alison Bolton - Chief Executive (OPCC) Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. A Panel member referred to page 66 noting the report: Anti-Social Behaviour – Living a Nightmare, published in 2019 by the then Victim Commissioner, asking whether the twelve recommendations in that report were being followed up nationally and whether the PCC supported those. - In response, the Chief Executive (OPCC) noted that the OPCC was aware of that report and those twelve recommendations were for a multitude of different agencies to pursue. - The Chief Executive (OPCC) added that the OPCC had actively promoted the Community Trigger and reviewed its role in the process, a colleague sat on the Home Office Working Group where the Community Trigger and best practice was reviewed; the OPCC would provide a future update on the support of those recommendations and whether they were being taken forward nationally. 2. Having raised the comment under the item on the draft Plan, the Panel member re-emphasised the importance of having an independent person at the Community Trigger meetings, many ASB and residential inquiries do involve police presence and the repetition of calls to 101 or 999 does not help the victim who must be given a fair chance to represent their concerns through the Community Trigger process; he highlighted an example of a family affected by ASB incidents. He asked how many Community Trigger meetings had taken place in Surrey, how many of those had the PCC attended and what were the outcomes. - In response the PCC noted the example provided by the Panel member, recognising the importance of a multi-agency approach including the involvement from borough and district councils around housing. She explained that the Community Trigger process was also the responsibility of the Community Safety Partnerships; Surrey did more on addressing ASB than other areas which would be highlighted in a national directive next year from the Home Office. - The PCC further noted that victims involved in the Community Trigger process were allowed a victim’s advocate and should complete an impact statement, the details of cases remained private and the process was victim focused; the statistics requested would be followed up. 3. The Panel member referred to the eighth recommendation from the report on Anti-Social Behaviour – Living a Nightmare, whereby if the victim does not agree with the Community Trigger outcome the PCC can act as an arbitrator and the sentence on page 71 which states that nationally few OPCC’s carry out the role in the review process around victim dissatisfaction on when the threshold was met or the way the Community Trigger process was carried out. He highlighted the sentence on the OPCC’s monitoring of reviews across the county and was sceptical that the OPCC only received two escalation requests since 2014. - In response, the Chief Executive (OPCC) noted that she had no reason to dispute that number, noting that the Community Trigger process was ... view the full minutes text for item 87/21 |
|
|
PERFORMANCE MEETINGS
This report provides an update on the performance meetings between the PCC and the Chief Constable that have been held and what has been discussed in order to demonstrate that arrangements for good governance and scrutiny are in place.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey Alison Bolton - Chief Executive (OPCC) Johanna Burne - Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The PCC noted that for the six months that she had been in the role, she continued the format of the meetings set out by her predecessor and the OPCC was reviewing the process; she noted the importance of communicating with the public. 2. A Panel member noted that since asking a public question to the Panel a year ago about the unacceptable delays in answering 101 calls, he noted disappointment that the delays had worsened and recognised that the PCC was looking to address that. 3. The Chairman noted that improving the current waiting times for answering 101 calls was included in the draft Plan, he noted that during Covid-19 the Contact Centre had been split into six centres and reduced to two, an increase in 999 calls would affect the 101 waiting times. He noted that it would be useful in the future for the Panel to review the Force balanced scorecard which would include the average waiting times. - In response, the PCC explained that she was addressing the matter, she had a recent meeting with the Head of Contact, Surrey Police, and noted that the DPCC spoke regularly with the Deputy Chief Constable on the matter. - The PCC noted the frustrations that the 101 service was never intended to be solely a policing line, the Force sought to get users to use different modes of communication, noting the difficulty in the 101 service of not being able to triage. 4. The Chairman asked whether the Panel would benefit from a presentation on the 101 service - including the digital 101 service - or a visit to the Contact Centre, having had previous visits. - The Chief Executive (OPCC) noted the previous visits to the Contact Centre, she would look into possible future visits - taking into account the Covid-19 situation. 5. A Panel member referred to the impressive digital 101 service, however noted that the figures provided by the Chief Constable did not include every route of communication as Facebook Messenger was omitted, he asked for all the routes to be included in the statistics for the 101 service. - The Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC) responded that the Force and the Deputy Chief Constable were keen to get those figures, work on collating the statistics on the routes of communications for the 101 service was underway.
RESOLVED:
That the Panel noted the update on the Performance Meetings.
Actions/further information to be provided:
1. R45/21 - The Chief Executive (OPCC) will look into possible future visits for the Panel to the Contact Centre - taking into account the Covid-19 situation. 2. R46/21 - All the routes of communication will be collated and included in the statistics for the 101 service, particularly the statistics around Facebook Messenger within the digital 101 ... view the full minutes text for item 88/21 |
|
|
PCC FORWARD PLAN AND KEY DECISIONS
This report provides information on the key decisions taken by the PCC from September 2021 to present and sets out details of the Office’s ongoing Forward Plan for 2021/2022.
Additional documents: Minutes: See Annex B for two Panel member questions sent in advance of the meeting
Witnesses:
Kelvin Menon - Chief Finance Officer (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. A Panel member thanked the OPCC for including the extra column clarifying what would require a decision notice. 2. Referring to reports received by the JAC in the last few months, the Panel member highlighted the limited assurance reports on ICT and risk management which related to a previous report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) whereby limited assurance was given to efficiency concerning the extent to which the Force understood the demand for its services. He asked whether the PCC was satisfied with the Force’s responses to the limited assurance report on risk management. - In response, the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) noted that there were several ICT reports which had received limited assurance, the Force had invested in a new Chief Data and Information Officer to address the SIAP audit recommendations which were being monitored at the JAC meetings, there was still work to be done. - Regarding the report on risk management which had received limited assurance, the Chief Finance Officer (OPCC) noted that the risk management system was old and cumbersome involving individual data entry, the Force was investing in a new system - which was used by Sussex Police - and had employed a new manager to look into risk management; the JAC was keen for the Force to understand its risks.
RESOLVED:
That the Panel noted the report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
OPCC COMMISSIONING UPDATE
The Police and Crime Panel will receive a presentation at the meeting which will provide an update on OPCC commissioning activity, including how we have been working with partners and responding to the pandemic.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Lisa Herrington - Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC) Johanna Burne - Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC) provided an overview of the OPCC’s approach to commissioning through a presentation at Annex E, key areas covered were: - Commissioning Strategy; - Technology; - OPCC Commissioning Budgets 2021/22; - Responding to a crisis; - From December 2020, new money and new PCC; - A summer of bids; - Perpetrator Programmes; - Victim & Witness Care Unit (VWCU) including testimonies from: victims of crime, outreach clients, mediation clients and a support coaching client, and Amber users (which provided support to young users away from risky behaviours); - The VWCU’s Mission to change futures. 2. The Chairman thanked the Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC) for the informative presentation. 3. A Panel member highlighted the support given to the East Surrey Domestic Abuse Services (ESDAS) by borough and district councils in the east of the county and it was good to see that ESDAS was receiving funding through other means. 4. The Panel member noted the difficulty for borough and district councils in Surrey in bidding for funding due to the effort involved in bidding without a guarantee of funding, he noted that the borough and district councils were looking at joint bids between them and with Surrey County Council. He asked to what extent the OPCC sought to bid jointly and whether there was a separate bidding process from the Force. - The Head of Policy and Commissioning (OPCC) responded in relation to Victim Services and bidding, she recognised the effort involved in bidding without a guarantee of success. The OPCC bids for grants when those meet its objectives and would always seek to work with partners including the borough and district councils in Surrey, noting the successful bid for the Safer Streets Fund. 5. The Panel member noted that Mole Valley District Council received local funding to meet its climate change strategy, given that the Force was aiming to be carbon neutral by 2030 he asked whether the OPCC would look to bid for funding in support of that. - The Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC) explained that the Force has bid for climate change funding and had been successful, with funding for operational needs around fleets and estates and had bid for funding to develop strategies to address climate change and the Force worked with national climate change leads.
RESOLVED:
That the Panel noted the presentation.
Actions/further information to be provided:
1. R47/21 - The Panel will receive the OPCC’s new commissioning strategy in due course.
|
|
|
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION TIME
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 (18 November 2021). Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses: Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points raised in the discussion:
One question was received from Councillor Paul Kennedy. The question and response can be found attached to these minutes as Annex F.
A supplementary question was asked by Councillor Kennedy and the response can be found below.
1. Councillor Paul Kennedy (Mole Valley District Council):
Highlighted that it was the same question which he asked the previous PCC in March 2021 under the item on Public Questions.
He thanked the PCC for the answer provided and noted that she was not as expansive in terms of her response compare to that provided by the previous PCC, asking whether that was because the PCC took a narrower view of her remit in the area or whether she was sceptical of 20 mph speed limit areas.
In response, the PCC noted that:
· She was sceptical of speed limits that could not be policed and believed that it was for residents and Surrey County Council to review the current policy on Setting Local Speed Limits and would take their lead first before coming to any conclusion. RESOLVED:
That the Panel raised issues and queries concerning Crime and Policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
COMPLAINTS RECEIVED SINCE THE LAST MEETING
To note complaints against the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner received since the last meeting of the Police and Crime Panel. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Committee Manager (SCC) noted that Appendix A detailed the outcome of the Complaints Sub-Committee which met on 5 November 2021; whilst not the usual practice to publish the outcome letter, having invited representations from the complainants and the person complained against (PCC), the Complaints Sub-Committee had considered such representations and was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to append a redacted version of the outcome letter to complainants as at Appendix 1. 2. The Chairman highlighted that one new complaint had been received and noted that legal advice had been sought. He thanked the Committee Manager (SCC) for her work in preparing the agenda for the Complaints Sub-Committee and the Director of Law and Governance (SCC) for providing legal support.
RESOLVED:
That the Panel noted the report and Appendix A (including Appendix 1).
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
SURREY PCP BUDGET MID-YEAR CLAIM 2021
The Surrey Police and Crime Panel has accepted a grant from the Home Office to meet the costs of the Panel, including the administrative support. This purpose of this paper is to report on the use of the grant in 2021 (April 2021 - September 2021), as noted in the Panel’s mid-year claim submission to the Home Office submitted by the 29 October 2021 deadline.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Committee Manager (SCC) highlighted that the report detailed the Panel’s mid-year claim for April 2021 - September 2021 which was £19,506, compared to £18,243 for the previous year. 2. The Committee Manager (SCC) explained that every year the Panel receives a grant from the Home Office of £66,180 and half that amount was for the mid-year claim to cover travel expenses, staff overheads, administration and webcasting. The Panel’s end of year claim would be provided to the Panel in either June or September 2022 for noting.
RESOLVED:
That the Panel noted the report.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
To review the Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Amelia Christopher - Committee Manager (SCC) Johanna Burne - Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Committee Manager (SCC) noted that in addition to the Recommendations Tracker - Appendix 1 - three annexes provided detailed updates completing actions R27/21, R29/21 and R31/21. 2. The Committee Manager (SCC) asked for an update on action R8/21 as the initiative around reporting hate crimes at designated fire stations and extending that initiative to borough and district councils had been put on hold. - In response, the Head of Performance and Governance (OPCC) noted that due to the Covid-19 pandemic the initiative was on hold so suggested that the item be closed until a future update could be provided. - The Chairman requested that the item remain ongoing so it could be followed up. 3. The Chairman reminded Panel members to contact the Committee Manager (SCC) on adding potential items to the Forward Work Programme.
RESOLVED:
That the Panel noted the Recommendations Tracker and the Forward Work Programme.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Recommendation:
That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
That the Panel agreed to remain in Part 1 - in public - to consider item 17, therefore the Panel did not move into Part 2 - in private - the public were not excluded.
|
|
|
BUILDING THE FUTURE UPDATE
A verbal update is to be provided following the meeting of the Building the Future Board on 22 November 2021.
Confidential: Not for publication under Paragraph 3
Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Lisa Townsend - Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The PCC read out a statement as at Annex G. 2. The Chairman reminded the OPCC of action R23/21 concerning the detailed report on the Building the Future Programme to be provided to the Panel in due course, which should now reflect the decision for the Surrey Police headquarters to remain at Mount Browne, Guildford. He asked that an update on the Programme be provided at the February Panel meeting as per the Panel’s standing item: Building the Future Update and noted that Panel members could follow up with any questions to the Committee Manager (SCC). - The PCC noted that a more detailed update would be provided to the Panel at its next meeting in February, as per the Panel’s standing item: Building the Future Update. 3. Noting that his ward was next to Leatherhead, a Panel member expressed disappointment in the outcome as local residents expected to see more visible policing. As part of the intended move to Leatherhead, he hoped that the planned change of culture and transformation of the Force in relation to its climate change commitments for example, would continue with the redevelopment of Mount Browne. 4. A Panel member noted thanks to the PCC for getting things done and providing clarity on the Programme in a short time period as little had been achieved since 2014. - The Chairman did not share the Panel member’s optimism and awaited the next stages of the Programme. 5. A Panel member asked for a reminder on how much was spent on purchasing the Leatherhead site; the Chairman noted that question should be asked in due course. 6. The Panel member noted that the residents of Woking and Reigate were assured that the Woking Police Station and the Eastern Operating Base in Reigate would remain operational until the opening of the Leatherhead site; he sought reassurance that the sites would remain operational until full completion of the Programme in 2029. - The PCC responded that the Eastern Operating Base in Reigate and other police stations such as that in Woking would remain open - affecting the current disposal strategy - she reassured Panel members and residents that there would not be a loss to those sites in operation.
RESOLVED:
That the Panel noted the verbal update.
Actions/further information to be provided:
None.
|
|
|
PUBLICITY OF PART 2 ITEMS
To consider whether the item considered under Part 2 of the agenda should be made available to the Press and public. Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
As agreed under item 16, the Panel did not move into Part 2 and therefore the consideration of item 17 should be made available to the Press and public.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next public meeting of the Police and Crime Panel will be held on 4 February 2022. Additional documents: Minutes: The Panel noted that its next public meeting would be held on 4 February 2022 at Woodhatch Place, Reigate - the Chairman highlighted the importance of Panel members’ attendance in order to exercise its power of veto if chosen.
Vote of thanks:
· On behalf of the Panel the Chairman thanked the Panel’s Committee Manager (SCC) for her support provided over the past two years or so, noting that the Panel would be served by the Scrutiny Officer (SCC) going forward. · The PCC thanked the Committee Manager (SCC) for her assistance to the OPCC and welcomed the Scrutiny Officer (SCC). - In response, the Committee Manager (SCC) thanked the Panel and the OPCC.
|