Venue: Conference Room, Civic Centre, Silver Street, Enfield, EN1 3XA. View directions
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION
Attendees were welcomed to the meeting.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mark Rudling (EBRA), Pravin Varsani (Turkey Street CAPE), Andrew Francalanza (Victim Support), Superintendent Carl Robinson, Cllr Nick Dines, Andrea Clemons (Head of Community Safety), Edmund Fraser (Haselbury and Lower Edmonton CAPEs), Diana Nguimbi and Willem La Tulip-Troost (Enfield Youth Parliament).
To agree the minutes of the meeting held on the 21 May 2015
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 21 May 2015 were AGREED as a correct record, with the following amendments:
· Carol Shuttle to be noted as present at the meeting.
· The amendments below in bold:
Item 5 – Examination of Crime Statistics. Public Confidence and Victim Satisfaction, paragraph 4:
‘Vicky Dungate asked if she could be sent a copy of a ‘victim care card’
She referred to a victim of burglary who lived in a sheltered block who had not received a visit from the police. She thought a visit and reassurance given by a police officer would have been of great benefit to him. CI Kibblewhite agreed that a visit should have been made. He said visits were particularly important for vulnerable people. He mentioned that visits were made to the neighbours of crime victims, with the objective that CCTV cameras may be in use and evidence captured or witnesses identified.’
Item 6 – Target Establishment. Paragrap 1:
‘The current target strength for police officers is 561, this is a reduction of 5 posts from the last meeting and is a result of 5 officers now working in a central team working on the video identification unit. They continue to work on Enfield issues. Officers are also being posted to specialist units like Counter-Terrorism.’
· ‘DI’ to be amended to ‘CI’ Ian Kibblewhite where occuring.
Cllr Maguire, referred to Item 9, Any Other Business, The Disability Steering Group. She commented that this group was an important one, and, together with the Disability Liaison Officer, should be re-examined to ensure they were working most effectively. It was AGREED that the remit of the Disability Steering Group could be made clearer, and it was noted that the Terms of Reference might need to be revisited in this respect.
PRIORITY SETTING FOR THE SNB
The Chair will introduce this item for discussion.
It was acknowledged that the Safer Neighbourhoods Board should agree its priorities for the projects for which it wished to obtain MOPAC funding. The Chair stated that the Executive Committee had recently met and proposed two priorities, being:
· Serious Youth Violence;
· Domestic Violence (to include that relating to drug and alcohol misuse).
The following comments were then taken:
It was commented that there needed to be clear alignment between the Board’s priorities and where funding was directed.
It was also asked how the Executive Committee was put in place. The Chair responded that the Committee had been elected at the Annual General Meeting.
The Board AGREED these priorities.
The Chair then updated the Board on the last meeting of the Executive Committee. Members of the Committee had agreed to take on specific areas of responsibility as follows:
· Ruth Ward – Communications
· Harry Landsman – Board representative for Community Police Partnership.
· Janet Marshall and Sheila Stacey – MOPAC funding bids.
· Alok Agrawal – Committee Secretary
· Adrian Bishop-Laggett – Board representative for IAG.
The Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting of 20 July would be appended to the Board Minutes. ACTION: Jane Juby.
Examination of crime statistics received from MOPAC to include:
a) Recorded Crime
b) Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)
c) Public Confidence & Victim Satisfaction
d) Complaints against Borough Officers/ Staff
e) Stop and Search
CI Ian Kibblewhite gave the following update on crime statistics:
Incidents of Violence with Injury had increased substantially over the past year; this remained the most significant concern.
All crimes involving violence (for example, hate crimes, knife crime) had experienced increases.
Many violent incidents were related to gang tensions but were not necessarily gang on gang crimes. There were currently 250 gang nominals in Enfield which was one of the highest numbers in the Metropolitan Police area.
Much work was being undertaken to address the problem and to target gang members to disrupt their activities. This included initiatives such as the Gang Call-In which aimed to disincentivise gang members by exposing them to the consequences of gang life through testimony from doctors, former gang members, the Police and families of deceased gang members.
The Borough Commander was due to publish an article in the local press on what contribution the wider community could make to ensuring young people were not becoming involved in criminality.
Operation Trident had recently widened its remit to include all gang related crime.
Given the above, it was acknowledged that the newly agreed priority of Serious Youth Violence for the Board was a positive step.
CI Kibblewhite then commented that the Police were also now concentrating on targeting ‘wanted persons’. These included, for example, offenders who had breached bail conditions or who were wanted as named suspects.
The following questions were then taken:
Q: How was the recent incident of a man being stabbed and his laptop stolen recorded?
A: It was recorded as both a robbery and a murder; both crimes would also have had ‘knife crime flags’.
Q: Isn’t it still the case that MOPAC does not yet separate out new and repeat Domestic Violence incidents in its statistics?
A: This may be the case, however, the Police in the Borough do hold fortnightly review meetings which include looking at potential repeat victims and offenders of Domestic Violence.
Q: Are Officers receiving any training in combating radicalisation?
A: The Borough currently has two Officers who have good links to the Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Unit. A lot of work is being undertaken with faith communities, and with the wider family to help prevent radicalisation.
Public Confidence and Victim Satisfaction
Public Confidence – Levels of Public Confidence in Enfield had decreased to 60% over the year. It was acknowledged, however, that levels were difficult to measure and results may not be truly reflective of the wider population since the number of respondents to the survey was usually low.
It was acknowledged that recent high profile incidents had probably impacted on public confidence and that Police visibility and contactability were important factors.
Visibility may have reduced as a number of PCSOs had now become PCs with expanded remits and bigger shift patterns. The closure of Ponders End Station may have also reduced perceptions of visibility. It was acknowledged, however, that such closures delivered the savings needed, avoiding the need to reduce Police numbers.
To receive an update from Chief Inspector Ian Kibblewhite
CI Kibblewhite gave the following update:
· A number of officers were now working in specialist roles such as Counter-Terrorism; however, these were being replaced by new recruits. There would be a consistent influx of such recruits until at least October/November.
· Some areas of policing had been centralised, for example, Custody, which was now part of the Metropolitan Police’s Met Detention Team and officers in the Business Intelligence Unit were now part of the Met Intel Team. These officers were now counted as part of these teams; however, they still performed the same function in the Borough.
· Prior to implementation of the Local Policing Model in September 2013, there were 42 PCs on Safer Neighbourhood Teams. At present, there were approximately 100 PCs.
The following questions were then taken:
Q: How is target strength determined?
A: This is determined centrally to a given formula. PCs were increased by 85 when the Local Policing Model was implemented in recognition of the specific challenges faced by the Borough (for example, geographical size, increasing population).
UPDATE ON CURRENT POLICE OPERATIONS
To receive an update on current Police operations from Chief Inspector Ian Kibblewhite.
CI Kibblewhite updated the Board on recent operations as follows:
Operation Omega – this Operation now incorporated Operation Equinox and had been running since May and aimed to tackle the MOPAC 7 20% reduction target. Two dedicated teams worked as a uniformed presence in certain areas, or targeted wanted offenders and named suspects.
Operation Spyder – this continued to tackle motor vehicle crime and criminal damage. Challenges remained around apprehending key individuals; who were being targeted.
Met Trace – 30,000 addresses were to be targeted for Smart Water registration over the next 3 years. It was hoped that 9,000 addresses would be registered by March 2016. A dedicated team visited properties daily; a consistent approach was being undertaken and visits also provided good engagement opportunities with residents.
Met Trace would also invite people to provide contact details so that they could be updated on current Police achievements and initiatives; it was intended that this would be particularly helpful in raising low Police confidence levels in areas such as Edmonton; which would also be the subject of targeted communications such as newsletters.
It was noted that Smart Water registration could be re-registered to a new address is someone moved. It was also noted that kits could be bought directly from the supplier if necessary.
It was also acknowledged that if a whole street was registered, this should be publicised as it would act as a deterrent to potential burglars. CAPEs could also promote the scheme.
The issue of people bypassing security intercoms in sheltered housing was also raised; CI Kibblewhite responded that such issues should be directed in the first instance to the relevant Ward Sergeant.
SNB FUNDING APPLICATIONS
An update on the SNB funding applications will be available at the meeting.
A table giving updates on current SNB funded projects would be circulated to Board members ACTION: Jane Juby
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Item for discussion -CAPES in Enfield and Engagement with the Neighbourhood Panels – Are they working well?
If you wish to raise a matter of urgent business, please send full details to Jane.firstname.lastname@example.org to arrive no later than 27 July 2015.
The following items were raised and discussed:
Integration of CAPEs and Neighbourhood Panels
Board members were asked whether this would be feasible; the Highway CAPE had recently undertaken this in order to see if this would increase community involvement in setting Ward Promises.
Board members, however, generally felt that increasing CAPE participation may be a better approach. It was AGREED not to proceed with this proposal.
It was also AGREED that the issue of Councillor participation at CAPEs be discussed at the next Board meeting ACTION: Jane Juby.
Peter Waterhouse gave the following update to the Board on ICV activity:
A meeting had been held on 14 July at which ICV representatives had been informed of a proposal to close Edmonton Police Station’s Custody Suite and relocate this facility to Wood Green.
CI Kibblewhite added that discussions had been held on the issue of making better use of custody facilities and the above proposal had been part of this discussion. However, the Borough’s position remained that they wished to retain the Edmonton Custody Suite.
The use of text message reminders had improved attendance at visits which were now at 100%.
A disabled member of ICV was now undertaking visits. A Risk Assessment had been carried out in this regard and the visits were working well.
Anti-Social Behaviour – London Underground Stations
Board members reported that there was often ASB associated with London Underground Stations in the Borough, particularly late at night, and were concerned that this would increase once London Underground moved to a 24 hour service.
Board members asked if the Police would be doing anything in particular to address this?
CI Kibblewhite responded that the issue had been raised that morning with him. The British Transport Police would be responsible for policing of the network itself. The Borough’s approach would be to monitor the situation and keep Officers on duty for longer if necessary; it would be a complex and long process to change annual rosters.
Burglary – Theft from Asian Families
A Board member asked if Asian families were currently at higher risk of burglary and why this was the case. CI Kibblewhite responded that such families could be the target of gold theft. Such incidents were at lower levels than last year.
A Board member asked where Police currently stationed at Southgate Police Station would be based in the future. CI Kibblewhite responded that, although the Station was currently on the market, it had not yet been sold. There would be alternative local provision.
The Chair informed the Board that the last CCTV monitoring visit had been undertaken in 2013; the Chair was due to meet with members of the Community Safety Team to discuss reinstatement of such visits. It was noted, however, that legislation had been changed since the last visit and this would need to be borne in mind when setting out the process. Volunteers for visits would be needed in the future.
DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS
The following meeting dates have been arranged for the year
Thursday 19 November 2015 and
Thursday 4 February 2016
Meeting 19 November 2015 will include an item on Community Payback.
The dates of future meetings were NOTED.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 20 JULY 2015
As AGREED at Item 4, the Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee 20 July 2015 are appended below:
Minutes of Safer Neighbourhood Board Executive Committee Meeting
On Monday July 20th 2015 6.00pm at The Lancaster Centre, Enfield, EN2 0BU
Present: Tim Fellows, Ruth Ward, Harry Landsman, Janet Marshall, Sheila Stacey and Alok Agrawal
1) The chair Tim Fellows welcomed everyone to this first meeting of the Board’s Executive.
2) Tim explained that since his election as Chair he has attended several meetings with Sue Payne and Andrea Clemons regarding the work of the Board.
There was discussion on the way to find out whether all the CAPEs are active or not, Tim has requested an update from the Police at the full Board meeting next week. Also find out the up to date correct contact details of the Chairs of the CAPEs. Ruth is going to deal with this. Action RW
Tim explained that SNB have responsibility to monitor the Community Payback Project and the Board have to work out the detailed procedure to monitor this scheme. Tim has requested that the company with the contract to administer the scheme come and give a presentation at a future full Board meeting.
3) As Tim is quite busy he would like all of us to take specific responsibility for the Board. He suggested the responsibilities as follows:
Ruth Ward will be responsible to communication that will include all the correspondences, up to date list of members etc.
Harry Landsman will represent Board at London Community Police Partnership (LCP2).
Janet Marshall and Sheila Stacey will look after the SNB Funding Applications to MOPAC.
And Alok Agrawal will look after the minutes of the Board’s Executive Meetings.
All members agreed their portfolios.
4) There was discussion regarding the priorities for Funding and these two priorities were agreed to be presented to the full board: 1) Serious Youth Violence and 2) Domestic Violence (including Drink & Drugs).
5) Any other Business: Representation of the Disability Group was discussed. Ruth agreed to take this up with Ian Kibblewhite again.
Tim to contact ABL regarding SNB representation on the IAG Action Tim
Tim to ask Elaine to invite Cllr. Brett to the full board meeting Action Tim
Tim to follow up Andrea Clemons regarding CCTV Station monitoring group
Dates of the Future Exec Meetings
5th October 2015
18th January 2016.
Meeting ended at 7.45pm.