Agenda item

(i)     Report of the Corporate Director of Neighbourhoods and Climate Change.

(ii)  Presentation by Keith Wanley, Chair of the Safe Durham Partnership.

The Chair welcomed the Area Manager, Community Risk Management, County Durham and Darlington Fire and Rescue Service, Keith Wanley in his capacity as the Chair of the Safe Durham Partnership (SDP) Board who was in attendance to provide the Committee with a presentation in relation to the draft Safe Durham Partnership Plan 2021-2025 Consultation (for copy see file of minutes).

The Chair, SDP thanked the Committee and referred to the presentation set out within the agenda papers.  He reminded Members that there had been an update to the SDP Plan last year, however, it had been previously agreed to refresh the plan after one year following County Durham Partnership (CDP) reviews and with a need to align with the new 2035 County Vision.  He added that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on County Durham, from early 2020, needed to be taken into account within the Plan noting that the response of the SDP to the pandemic had been the subject of a presentation that he had given to Committee at a previous meeting.  The Chair, SDP noted that the refresh provided the opportunity to ensure services continued to be delivered effectively and that there was good use of resources to make County Durham a better place to live, work and visit.  He noted the new partnership framework, as agreed by the CDP in September 2020, aided in delivery of the County Durham Vision 2035.

The Chair, SDP referred to slides setting out the SDP led objectives within the County Durham Vision 2035, the impact of COVID-19 on areas under the SDP, and the SDP Plan Priorities for 2021-2025.  He explained the priorities were:

·        Promote being safe and feeling safe in your community

·        Support victims and protect vulnerable people from harm

·        Prevent: Counter Terrorism, Radicalisation and Violent Extremism

·        Reduce reoffending

·        Alcohol and substance misuse reduction

·        Tackle and prevent cyber enabled crime

The Chair noted in respect of the first priority, there were issues of anti-social behaviour (ASB), road safety and hate crime, with deliberate fires seeming to sit within ASB as opposed to being a separate priority itself.

The Chair, SDP noted that fires were linked to ASB, with primary fires linked to criminal damage and secondary, more nuisance fires took up a lot of resource.  He noted that fires were one form of ASB and were recorded with the Performance Indicators within that area.  He added that all sub-groups had been reviewed in December 2020 to see which delivery mechanism in terms of ASB would be best.  He noted one potential sub-group was the County Durham Together Partnership which would look at a more place-based approach. 

He noted the concerns of the Chair given the statistics relating to ASB and fires and explained that his personal view was that, following the review in December and further discussions at the SDP Board in January, that the issues of fires could be managed under ASB.  He added that it was something that would need to be kept under review as new delivery mechanisms were put in place.  The Chair noted ASB could encompass a wide range of behaviours from throwing a snowball through to much more serious issues and he felt that fires were an issue that seemed sufficiently serious to warrant its own section, not just being within ASB.

Councillor J Charlton noted the increase in figures in relation to hate crime and asked if this was as a result of it being a new definition or whether it was as more people understood how to report such incidents as hate crime.  The Strategic Manager (Partnerships), Andrea Petty agreed with Councillor J Charlton in terms of increasing understanding of how to report such incidents and reminded Members of the work with the Police, Crime and Victims’ Commissioner’s (PCVC) Office on the “Hate Hurts” campaign.  She noted that over the next few months work would be undertaken by the Hate Crime Action Group to see if the increase in reporting was as a result of that campaign.

Councillor C Wilson noted issues of ASB in West Auckland and asked as regards any work in the area of the links between animal abuse to child abuse.  The Chair, SDP noted he sat on the Safeguarding Adults Board and that information as regards the connection had been sent out last year.  He noted it had been circulated within the Fire Service as those entering properties may notice animals being mistreated and there was some correlation to safeguarding.  He noted he would speak to the Chair of the Safeguarding Adults Board and the Chair of the Safeguarding Children Board to ask if they can refresh that information.

Councillor K Thompson noted most Members would have some issues in their areas relating to ASB and asked as regards how involved the Police had been in terms of the Council’s Selective Licensing scheme as landlord disputes could be a factor in ASB.  The Chair noted that issue was outside of the scope of the Committee, however the issue had been noted.

Councillor B Kellett noted the issue of fly-tipping, with used tyres being a particular issue in his area and asked if recycling or reuse for another purpose could be encouraged.  The Chair, SDP noted there had been a lot of work carried out with the County Council and the Fire and Rescue Service in respect of fly-tipping and while it had been reported that fly-tipping had reduced it was still a concern.  He noted he would speak to his Arson Reduction Manager, who sat on the Fly-tipping Task Force, as regards the issue.

Councillor R Crute asked as regards any emerging or persistent issues associated with ASB and how they would be mapped, noting the issue of off-road vehicles raised at Police and Communities Together (PACT) meetings.  He noted the valid point made by Councillor K Thompson in terms of links to ASB with some tenants in the private rented sector and added he hoped the Secretary of State would give approval for selective licensing. 

Councillor R Crute noted he agreed with Councillor J Charlton as regards hate crime, however, there were changes in the form of such crime, noting the rise of far-right and fascism.  He asked how that was handled and how it linked nationally and internationally.  The Chair, SDP noted that in respect of the recording of ASB it could be either to the Council or to the Police with the figure reported being a combined figure.  He added he did not have a breakdown of ASB by type to hand.  He explained he agreed with the comments in respect of selective licensing, noting he had worked as part of the group when the bid was initially being developed and he too hoped for approval from the Secretary of State.

The Chair, SDP noted that different areas in respect of selective licensing were designated for different reasons, with some being as a result of ASB and he noted this would need to be monitored in terms of impact, however, he felt there would be a positive impact.  The Strategic Manager (Partnerships), noted that off-road vehicles were an issue discussed at LMAPS around the County and therefore partners were looking at how to work together to try and resolve the issue.  In respect of selective licensing there had been the discussions around the Vision objectives, and she gave assurance it was an area the SDP would be looking at as part of its agenda.

The Chair noted the issues raised by Members and suggested it was important how those issues were articulated within the priorities.  He noted issues such as deliberate fires, seeming more serious that simple ASB, selective licensing and off-road vehicles, including issues of uninsured riders and damage to the environment.  He suggested it may be useful if those issues were set out more explicitly within the Plan.

In respect of the second priority, Councillor R Crute noted articles in the press as regards “county lines” and the impact of the pandemic nationally, reducing the number of incidents as fewer people were on the street and with public transport was being used much less.  He asked whether there was any similar impact on the issue in County Durham.  The Chair, SDP noted he did not have the details, with the Strategic Manager (Partnerships) noting that there had been incidents on the outskirts of the county, and it was an issue she could come back to Members on.  The Chair noted that with lockdown those transporting drugs and driving would stand out more and perhaps have more chance of being stopped.  Councillor L Kennedy noted the work undertaken in her Division and, through their local Neighbourhood Budget, some activity in relation to numberplate recognition which had been funded.  Councillor J Stephenson noted she had recently read that the prevalence of such county lines activity, and children being groomed to undertake the activity, had increased during the pandemic.  She noted it had been stated that parents were not aware and with children not currently being in school there was a greater opportunity for them to be drawn into such activity.  Councillor J Stephenson noted she felt it would be of interest to Members for further information to come back to the Committee.

In respect of the third priority, the Chair noted that as children had not been in school, then the number of referrals via schools would therefore likely have reduced.  He noted the example mentioned was far-right terrorism and agreed that would be a more likely scenario than other types of terrorism in County Durham.  Councillor R Crute noted the wording of “Prevent counter terrorism” could be confusing.  The Chair, SDP agreed, with the Strategic Manager (Partnerships) noting PREVENT was the national programme, countering terrorism.

In relation to the fourth priority, the Chair noted that the Committee had received varying figures in relation to the reducing reoffending rate for children and young people and asked how it was recorded.  He noted, as he understood, some other authorities were recording reported crimes with others recording admissions of guilt and added he felt there should be standardised method of recording.  The Chair, SDP noted he would refer the matter to Police colleagues and ask for a response for the Committee.  Councillor R Crute noted the recent presentation at Committee as regards the Probation Service where Members had received information as regards the changes to the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), to effectively renationalise the service and therefore it may take time for figures to feed through and the information may be available when the NPS next attended Committee.  He added it was not simply a probation issue, with there being issues in terms of how the criminal justice system was funded, and further information may come from a future meeting with the NPS.

In respect of the fifth priority, Councillor J Charlton asked if the increase in alcohol and drug use during the pandemic period had links to domestic abuse.  The Chair, SDP noted the links between alcohol misuse and domestic violence and added that alcohol misuse was an issue that was cross-cutting with many of the priority areas.  He noted he did not have a breakdown to hand, with the Strategic Manager (Partnerships) noting that it would be possible to speak to colleagues within the Police and come back to Members with further information.

Councillor J Turnbull noted the issue of illegal drug use appeared to be increasing, with use of taxis to cross into the county, and with an increase in use drug paraphernalia being left lying around.  He noted repeated reporting of properties involved in drugs, adding that when nothing appeared to happen, members of the community would become disillusioned.  He added there needed to be a greater clampdown on such drug use as there was a significant impact on young children by those using drugs and leaving needles lying around.  The Chair, SDP noted he would take the issue back to the Board to see what actions were being taken in that regard.

The Chair noted the reduction in drug poisoning and misuse deaths and queried if there was a link to any reduction in county lines activity.  He added that the reduction in Public Health funding was a concern as they had been instrumental in helping people to successfully complete drug and alcohol treatment.  He noted that recent budget reports had reassured Members in terms of allocation to Public Health and drug and alcohol services, an area he felt was vital in both terms of health and crime issues.

In relation to the sixth priority, the Chair noted the Vice-Chair, Councillor H Liddle had chaired a working group looking at the issue of cybercrime.  Councillor J Stephenson asked if the current work included combating telephone scams as well as online fraud, with many older vulnerable residents were being targeted via telephone, especially during the pandemic.  The Chair, SDP noted he would check if the work included telephone fraud.  The Strategic Manager (Partnerships) noted that work undertaken by the SDP and the Safeguarding Adults Board was not specific to telephones, however, she understood some work of the Safeguarding Adults Board had included the issue of fraud, including telephone fraud, in particular those targeting elderly residents.

Councillor K Thompson asked for clarification in terms of “Work with the voluntary and community sector to identify means of communicating digital hygiene…”.  The Strategic Manager (Partnerships) noted it may need to be set out clearer, however, it referred to issues such as keeping passwords and PINs safe and secure, and raising awareness of those issues with vulnerable groups.

The Chair noted that Members had commented on the SDP Priorities throughout the presentation and that Officers would have made note of those comments.  The Chair, SDP noted that the consultation had taken place and had tried to encompass a wide range of groups, including the Youth Council which had shown a great improvement in the increased number of responses from that age group.  He noted the responses from Members along with those from the other groups would be included and the finalised Plan would be considered by the SDP Board on 10 March 2021.  He thanked the Chair and Members for the opportunity to bring the draft Plan to Committee and reiterated the comments had been noted.

The Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Jonathan Slee noted he would collate the comments from the Committee and agree the response to the SDP with the Chair, to be circulated to the Committee in due course.  The Chair thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Officer and added that the opportunity for Members to provide input into the Plan was one of the highlights of the Committee.  He also thanked the Chair, SDP and the Strategic Manager (Partnerships) for their presentation, and Members for their contributions.

Resolved:

That the comments of the Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee on the draft Safe Durham Partnership Plan 2021-2025 be collated and fed back to the Partnership.