Decision details

Advise on the priorities to be adopted for the next period of neighbourhood policing.

The Committee received a report from the Anti-Social Behavior Officer, regarding policing and safer neighbourhood’s trends.

 

The report outlined actions taken since the last reporting period. The current emerging issues/neighbourhood trends for each ward were also highlighted (see report for full details). Previous priorities and engagement activity noted in the report were:

 

     i.        Coleridge Rec: Anti-Social Behaviour

    ii.        County Line drug dealing – focussing on Godesdone Road and Stanley Road in the Riverside Area

   iii.        Road Safety

  iv.        Mill Road: Anti-Social Behaviour

 

The following question and comments were made by the public and members of the committee.

 

     i.        Would like to pass on the public thanks to the police and the city council’s anti-social behaviour team, for their hard work and effort, in dealing with those individuals rough sleeping and drug taking in Hills Road.

    ii.        Expressed thanks to the anti-social behaviour team and Councillor Sinnott for their work on Hills Road.

   iii.        Had been advised six individuals had been served with injunctions on Hills Road. Four of who had been housed.  The remaining two had refused to engage with the city council in anyway.

  iv.        The anti-social behaviour issues on Hills Road had been brought to the attention of city council officers and councillors two years previously; a number of proactive residents had worked continually with the police and officers, collating evidence which had assisted in the removal of the individuals.  

   v.        Problems with anti-social behaviour, such as drug dealing and drug taking still remained in Burnside as highlighted at the last East Area Committee meeting.

  vi.        Would like to see the subject of drug dealing and drug taking as a single standard item on the Cambridgeshire Police and Crime Panel agenda.  The police had to be held to account on why they were not doing what was expected of them on this matter.

 vii.        A large proportion of anti-social behaviour was as a result of drug related issues and the long term response of the police was that they were ‘too busy’ to deal with these issues. The police presence on drugs needed to be increased; being busy with other priorities was not an acceptable excuse. Drugs were a feeder of crime and need to be treated as a priority

viii.        Resident support was crucial to resolve similar issues in other areas of the city. There was no simple solution to the problem.

  ix.        Increased city council provision was needed to work with those people who were rough sleeping, to determine if they were genuinely homeless or were ‘fake beggars’.

   x.        The dealing and taking of drugs was a huge problem in Cambridge and members of the public giving money to those begging assisted the problem.

  xi.        There seemed to be an increase in the number of complaints from residents to Councillors regarding suspected drug dealing and drug taking.  It was very difficult for the public to see any action from the police and any positive changes. Would request a response from the police on what was being done regarding these issues and how the anti–social behaviour being addressed by city council officers.

 xii.        Daily complaints were received from residents on Argyle Street regarding the dealing and taking of drugs.

xiii.        Drugs were unrelenting problem which the police (who were under resourced and understaffed) could not always deal with as effectively as residents would like.

xiv.        The city council’s anti-social behaviour team would continue to work with the police. It could be a future possibility to employ an officer who was part funded or fully funded by the City Council to deal solely with street life issues.

xv.        Enquired why the current crime figures for cycle theft in the Petersfield ward was so high. Was this because of the area around the railway station; the cycle point had been active in the location for a year which could be a contributing factor and questioned if the CCTV and cycle marshal were active?

xvi.        Believed that cycle theft was a particular problem outside Anglia Ruskin University and Parkside swimming pool.

xvii.        The results of the first round of Operation Velo deployments were very promising. Could this be a continuous police standard, particularly close pass?

 

The Committee agreed that it was regretful that no police presence could attend the meeting.

 

It requested a letter be sent to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) expressing disappointment, outlining their concerns on the issues of drugs in the City and inviting the commissioner to a future meeting (ACTION).

 

Councillor Jones suggested that the letter to the PCC could be signed by all Area Chair’s as the issue of drugs covered all wards in the city.

 

A request would also be sent inviting the Police to the next East Area Committee (ACTION).

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved unanimously to approve the following as a local issue of focus:

 

i.                 Dealing of drugs, drug use and the associated anti-                           social behaviour.