Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Juke and Lappage.

Members of the Council are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were received.

To receive a written update from Andrea Clemons, Head of Community Safety

RECEIVED an update on the Enfield Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Performance Data from Sandeep Broca, Youth Crime Analyst.

NOTED:

(i)            ASB calls, Burglary, Theft from Person, Robbery, Theft from Motor vehicles, Theft of Motor Vehicles and overall Serious Acquisitive Crime were all experiencing reductions in the rolling 12 months to 13^th November 2014;

(ii)          There had been a large increase in Police referrals to MARAC (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference). This had been partially due to improvements to the systems through which referrals were made;

(iii)         A significant increase in knife injuries had been noted across the borough in recent months;

(iv)         Two of the seven MOPAC (Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime) indicators were currently experiencing increases in the 12 months rolling (Criminal Damage +3.6% and Violence with Injury +24.1%). Overall, MOPAC seven crime types were experiencing a -8.5% decrease in the rolling 12 months to date;

(v)          For the 12 months to November 2014, Enfield was one of only seven London boroughs experiencing an increase in Total Notifiable Offences (+0.2%). London overall had experienced a decrease in crime over this same period of approximately -4.2%;

(vi)         Sandeep then provided Performance Overview Data for the MOPAC 7 and SSCB priorities. He also went through the London Borough Ranking Tables for MOPAC 7 & Total Notifiable Offences which detailed percentage changes. He was pleased to report that Enfield were slowly but surely creeping up both tables and these increases had happened at the same time as extra resources had been received to tackle problems in the borough;

(vii)        Members were then provided with detailed information and figures for Serious Acquisitive Crime (SAC) which included Robbery, Vehicle Crime and Burglary Dwelling. Sandeep also provided information on Violence Against Women & Girls (VAWG) and Serious Youth Violence;

(viii)      Reported Domestic Abuse Violence with Injury offences had risen by +31.3% over the past 12 months (210 additional reports to police). There had also been a significant increase in the number of MARAC referrals made by police and partnership agencies over the past year;

(ix)         With regards to Serious Youth Violence this continued to be a very challenging piece of work. Enfield was currently experiencing a +21.4% increase in the rolling 12-months and a -13.0% reduction compared to 2011/12. London had experienced an overall increase of 9.5% in the past 12-months;

(x)          Enfield was one of the top 10 highest percentage increase boroughs for Serious Youth Violence (SYV) over the past 12 months. Neighbouring boroughs Haringey and Waltham Forest were experiencing larges increases, as well as most other North and Central London boroughs.

Following Sandeep’s update the following comments/questions were raised:

(a)  Councillor Hamilton was concerned by the Violence with Injury figures. She felt it would be useful to see a separation of figures for Domestic Violence with Injury. Sandeep agreed to provide this.

Action: Sandeep Broca

(b)  Questions were raised as to how Waltham Forest, an adjoining borough, was doing so much better than Enfield in the MOPAC 7 Crime Table and way better  ...  view the full minutes text for item 281.

To receive a briefing on the changes within the new Act.

RECEIVED an update on the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 from Kaunchita Maudhub.

NOTED:

(i)            The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 received Royal assent on 13 March 2014. This new piece of legislation was still being implemented by partners in the borough;

(ii)          The majority of the powers within the Act came into force as at 20^th October 2014, except Civil Injunctions which was still awaiting a commencement date;

(iii)         The overarching aim of the Act was to provide more effective powers to tackle Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB), protect victims and communities, and treat the underlying behaviour of perpetrators;

(iv)         The Act replaces 19 existing powers dealing with anti-social behaviour with 6 broader powers, streamlining procedures to allow a quicker response. The Government envisages that these powers will make it easier for agencies, victims and communities to take action against ASB and reduce repeat offending;

(v)          The Act introduces two new measures which are designed to give victims and communities a say in the way ASB is dealt with (Community Trigger and Community Remedy)

(vi)         The Act deals with many different issues, some of which did not concern the management of anti-social behaviour. There are 14 parts to the Act but for the purpose of this report to the Panel parts 1-7 (ASB and Dangerous Dogs) was covered;

(vii)        Kaunchita then went through the report and updated Members and residents on the updated powers, explaining in detail the old power and new power/responsibility of Authority.

Following Kaunchita’s update the following comments/questions were raised;

(a)  Councillor David-Sanders asked if the process for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) and Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) were similar. Kaunchita confirmed that the CBO process was very similar to the post-conviction ASBOs previously used;

(b)  Councillor Hamilton welcomed the Act however, she could envisage additional work for the Council ASB Team and questioned whether there would be extra resources to deal with this;

(c)  Andrea Clemons advised that there would not be additional resources available within the team. However they would be working very closely with the Police as it was very much a collaborative effort. Andrea did point out that some areas of the new Act would in fact result in less work for the Team. For example, Dispersal Orders previously involved a fair amount of paperwork/formal consultation. This volume of work would not be required under the new Act as the Police could now literally tell the perpetrator/s to leave an area;

(d)  The Chair enquired about whether any of the new powers had been used already. Kaunchita outlined the single situation where they had been used to date;

(e)  Councillor Hamilton was somewhat concerned over these new Dispersal Order powers being that the Police no longer needed to consult with the Local Authority or Community. Andrea advised that although it was not a requirement for Police to consult with the LA, there was an agreement that this would continue. This however was based on the fact that the Enfield Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 282.

To receive a written update from Detective Superintendent Simon Warwick on Police numbers in the borough.

RECEIVED an update on Police numbers from Chief Inspector Taylor Wilson.

NOTED:

(i)            Chief Inspector Taylor Wilson provided an update on Police numbers in the Borough. He advised that prior to the implementation of the Local Policing Model, Police numbers in the Borough had sat at 524. This had subsequently increased in September 2013 to 609. Current numbers under the LPM allowed for 673 in total for all ranks, of which 625 posts were currently filled as at November 2014,

(ii)          CI Wilson then provided a breakdown of how the 625 posts were made up. This number included 50 PCSOs, a short fall of 40 as the allowed number was 90. However there were 406 Constables in post which was positive for the Borough in terms of policing on the streets;

(iii)         Members of the Panel were then updated on how the structure worked. CI Wilson explained that in essence there were three main areas of business, these were CID (Criminal Investigation Department), ERT (Emergency Response Team) and NPT (Neighbourhood Policing Team). A Briefing overview was then provided on the responsibilities and role of each of these business areas

Following Chief Inspector Wilson’s update the following comments/questions were raised:

(a)        Councillor Hamilton raised concerns that although the actual Police          numbers for Enfield were now higher than before the LPM she didn’t   feel this was reflected by more Police presence on the ground. For example with regards to the Safer Neighbourhood Teams in Edmonton     Green, Upper Edmonton and Haselbury it would appear that there had             been a reduction in numbers. She was also concerned that these   teams were working under much more pressure on a daily basis and           often got moved between wards;

(b)  CI Wilson explained how the new model worked and advised that the Safer Neighbourhood Teams sat within three clusters in the Borough. He agreed to provide Members with information on the cluster breakdowns to assist them in their understanding;

Action: Chief Inspector Wilson

(c)  He went on to say that it was recognised that teams were much more stretched than before and there was very much a more for less approach. However he advised the Panel that there was currently a MET wide review in place to address these sorts of issues which would include streamlining managers and investing more into putting additional Police back on the streets. The drive for the MET and Enfield Police was very much to have more Police patrolling the streets;

(d)  The Chair asked when we could expect the shortfall in the number of police to be rectified, and when the next recruitment drive would be occurring;

(e)  CI Wilson explained that the recruitment takes place quarterly with the next round likely to be in January 2015;

(f)   Councillor Hamilton was interested to see how Enfield’s Police numbers compared with other local inner city authorities. CI Wilson replied that it was acknowledged that Enfield were overstretched, however there were other boroughs sitting in a similar position. He explained that in boroughs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 283.

A resident raised concerns about the number of prescription drugs being discarded in the streets of Bowes Ward. Andrea said that she had mentioned this issue to the Police but they had no knowledge of this problem. She would however raise this matter at the next Tasking meeting to see if any other services had picked up on this.

To note the date of the next meeting of the Standing Crime Workstream as being 7pm, Wednesday 18 March 2015.

NOTED the date of the next meeting as Wednesday 18 March 2015 @ 7:00pm.