Agenda item

This short paper updates the Health and Wellbeing Board members on the developments under the Priority 3 outcome – ‘People are safe and feel safe’ - and in particular presents the Terms of Reference for the Community Safety Assembly and the proposed implementation plans.

Witnesses:

Sarah Haywood - Partnership and Community Safety Lead, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.      The Partnership and Community Safety Lead (OPCC) noted that:

-     she welcomed the Board’s comments on the Community Safety Assembly’s updated Terms of Reference, to be signed off by the Assembly in November.

2.    The Chair noted that she alongside many Members and residents had a problem with understanding what counted as anti-social behaviour, having looked up the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan she did not sense its alignment with the report. She noted the need to understand how the Plan was integrated, noting that she needed to understand who was taking ownership or the responsibility over anti-social behaviour and to communicate that across the county.

3.    Responding to the Chair, the Partnership and Community Safety Lead (OPCC) noted that:

-     the Implementation Plans sat under the Community Safety Agreement and then fed into the Strategy Implementation Plan, particularly Priority 3.

-     the four work programmes within the Implementation Plans were topical: serious violence, domestic abuse, violence against women and girls, and anti-social behaviour; there were lots of collaborative opportunities within those.

-     there were pieces of work underway nationally through pilot areas looking at the Government’s Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan, local implementation would follow from the results of those pilots.

-     it was sometimes difficult for residents and communities to understand who to report anti-social behaviour complaints to, as in the absence of criminality it would not always be the police. She would liaise with the SRO to ensure that within the action plan there would be clarity on the correct responder.

-     a recent survey of victims’ and residents’ perception and feeling of what anti-social behaviour looked like in Surrey’s communities had been undertaken; the results of that needed to be triangulated against the data from practitioners and frontline officers; to target resources to the right areas.

-     updates would be provided to the Board on the four work programmes within the Implementation Plans, for example violence against women and girls was on the agenda for the July informal Board meeting.

4.    A Board member noted that regarding the vision for anti-social behaviour in terms of the aim to continue to improve the understanding and response to incidents, it would be helpful to have a baseline of how effective the current response was. At a recent Thriving Communities Board in Stanwell the Police Community Support Officers present noted that they struggled to respond because they did not have the capacity. In terms of resourcing, she asked about how practical the Implementations Plans were on the ground noting that it would be important to have a holistic perspective, including for example preventative work in terms of community groups to occupy young people.

5.    A Board member queried whether the Community Safety Assembly meeting twice a year would be sufficient to address issues and follow up actions promptly. He paraphrased from the report which noted that members of the Assembly should be of sufficient seniority to be able to make decisions and commit resources, however most of those bodies would have to report back to committees and cabinets for approval; he suggested that the Assembly could meet quarterly. The Partnership and Community Safety Lead (OPCC) noted that the Assembly meeting twice a year was to ensure that it did not deflect from the Board’s work around community safety following the merger with the Community Safety Board. She would liaise with the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey on that suggestion.

RESOLVED:

1.    Considered the Community Safety Assembly’s Terms of Reference.

2.    Considered and supported the further development of the implementation plans for community safety under the Priority 3 outcome – ‘People are safe and feel safe’.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.    The Partnership and Community Safety Lead (OPCC) will liaise with the SRO to ensure that within the action plan there would be clarity on the correct responder to anti-social behaviour.

2.    The Partnership and Community Safety Lead (OPCC) will provide a response to the Board member’s (Denise Turner-Stewart) query on what the baseline is of how effective the current response to anti-social behaviour incidents is; and in terms of resourcing will explain how practical the Implementations Plans were on the ground and to have a holistic perspective.

3.    The Partnership and Community Safety Lead (OPCC) will liaise with the PCC on the Board member’s (Mark Nuti) suggestion for the Community Safety Assembly to meet quarterly rather than bi-annually.