Issue - meetings

The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner will discuss the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner, what his plans are over the next 4 years and then will be open to questions.

Andy Coles, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) introduced himself and his work.  He apologised for the lack of an exhibition before the meeting; he had not known that one was expected.

 

The Deputy PCC said that he had been appointed as deputy to the PCC, Jason Ablewhite.  He was himself a Peterborough City Councillor, and had been responsible for Children’s Services.  He had been a police officer for 30 years, working in Hackney and elsewhere in a variety of roles, ending as a Detective Chief Inspector in the Metropolitan Police.  He was now Chair of a local community association, liaising with local police in that role.

 

Mr Coles explained that under the legislation, the Police and Crime Commissioner was required to hold the Chief Constable to account, and to produce an annual report.  The draft job description was being developed in preparation for the next PCC election.  The PCC and Deputy PCC were also there to listen to what the community had to say about policing and their concerns; they tried to meet the public regularly in a variety of venues, such as supermarkets.

 

The Chair invited questions from members of the public.

 

Robert Hart asked what action the DPCC could take with regards to fear of crime

 

The Deputy PCC replied that there was not a lot it was possible to do about fear of crime when the crime was not there.  Cambridgeshire was one of the safest areas in the United Kingdom, and while there might be areas of Cambridge and Peterborough where crime was higher, in general crime levels were low.  In one beat in Hackney, he used to report 14 burglaries a day, compared with four a week in one ward in Cambridgeshire.  Vivid reporting on social media and in the wider media could however give the impression of high levels of local crime.

 

It was difficult to combat the fear of crime because putting information out about crime could itself increase the level of fear.  Although a bobby on the beat was a reassuring sight, it was not an effective means of combatting crime, because other crimes were being committed elsewhere in the time that the bobby was walking the beat.  It was difficult to combat fear of crime; there would always be greater fear of crime than the level of crime itself.

 

Richard Taylor said that he had arrived at 6pm for the advertised exhibition and to meet the Deputy PCC.  He had asked why the PCC had been unable to attend and been told it was because he had another unspecified engagement.  He had been unable to put various other questions; the question now was how could the PCC help with Area Committee local priority setting, for example in terms of getting more specific information about a violent crime, and when there was a difference of opinion between the police and the Committee on what was a priority such as enforcing the 20mph speed limit.

 

The Deputy PCC replied that what was needed in local policing, and what the PCC’s office did in holding the Chief Constable to account, could be two very different things.  People’s priorities across the county varied, and it was not for the PCC to dictate what the priorities should be across the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough; this should be a local decision.  He would however like to see a mechanism whereby the local police commander was able to know what the priorities were locally.

 

James Woodburn expressed concern about enforcement of the 20mph limit, particularly in Cherry Hinton Road and Coleridge Road, where many vehicles exceeded the limit.  He suggested that the group ‘20’s plenty’ be invited to address the Committee to inform them of the national situation, and asked that enforcement of the 20mph limit be added to the Committee’s local priorities.  In the absence of enforcement, he wanted to have proper adaptive measures in place in the two roads to make it necessary for cars to reduce their speed.

 

Mr Coles said that the force policy was that a 20mph limit would not be enforced in the absence of additional amelioration measures.  Speaking as a Peterborough City Councillor, he said that the decision had been taken in Peterborough that it was not practicable to have 20mph limits, partly because of the cost of signing and additional measures, and partly because there were roads very near the city centre where the limit was 40mph.

 

Committee members’ questions and comments to the Deputy PCC included

 

·        Given that the Police were reviewing the future of Parkside Police Station, and need a better custody suite, would the opportunity be taken to provide an accessible, ground-floor, 24-hour police station where the public could report crime

 

Mr Coles confirmed that the police were looking to redevelop the site of the Parkside station, and did intend to provide a local police station presence within Cambridge, which could perhaps be within the Fire Station.  Frontline policing was of key importance; efforts were being made to achieve savings without impacting on local delivery

 

·        Could the Deputy PCC commit to continuing to give priority to maintaining a high quality of neighbourhood policing in the coming year

 

Mr Coles replied that frontline policing was of key importance; efforts had been made to make savings without impacting on local delivery

 

·        In view of the recent centralisation of police community support officers (PCSOs) in Cambridge, could the PCC, while not responsible for how the police operated on the ground, ensure that sufficient resources were provided to enable the provision of ward-based PCSOs.

 

The Deputy PCC confirmed that it was up to the local commander to decide how to deploy PCSOs, though in his view, there should always be a neighbourhood police officer whom local people knew.  In Peterborough, PCSOs had been centralised, but local teams had then been reinstated. 

 

·        Drew attention to the difficulty in getting a reply sometimes experienced by residents who contacted the police by phone or email, and asked whether efforts were being made to improve accessibility and remove barriers between residents and police.  One resident, for example, had had difficulty getting a response from the police when their dog had been killed by another local, well-known dog.

 

Mr Coles said that the 101 telephone system had been much improved and now had a full complement of staff; one member of the Police and Crime Panel had reported that his call had been answered within 30 seconds.  He said that, as Deputy PCC, he could see that matters were followed up, and offered to do so if the dog incident was still ongoing.  He also pointed out that the police were subject to a stringent complaints process, should anybody have cause to make a complaint about police conduct.

 

Members of the public asked further questions, both cycling-related.

 

Roxanne De Beaux, Cycling Campaign Officer of Camcycle (Cambridge Cycling Campaign), speaking in a private capacity, said that she had seen no sign of action in relation to close passes by cars of cyclists on Mill Road Bridge, a problem raised at previous meetings.  She reported that the some police forces made provision for cyclists to upload video evidence of close passes through their websites, and suggested that Cambridgeshire police should consider the use of similar technology.  More people would cycle if they felt less vulnerable to close passes.

 

The Deputy PCC acknowledged the importance of cycling in Cambridge, and that it was not always given as high priority as cyclists would wish.  The Road Safety Partnership looked at cases of serious and slight injury, but the number of officers available was limited.  If there was a wish to deal with issues about cycling and risk, it would be necessary to ensure that it did not clash with other local priorities when local priorities were being set.  The Chair pointed out that PCCs were now responsible for setting strategic priorities for police forces, and could include enforcement of 20mph speed limits where that was a local concern.  The Deputy PCC undertook to convey this point.

 

A Councillor acknowledged the importance of good driver behaviour, but drew attention to how difficult it was to see cyclists who rode without lights and in dark clothing.  She requested that enforcement action be taken against cyclists riding through red lights, and not being lit at night.  She urged Camcycle to impress on cyclists the importance of visibility.  The Deputy PCC, himself a motorcyclist, agreed with her on visibility, and stressed the importance of education and effective training from primary school upwards for drivers and for cyclists.  Enforcement alone would not be sufficient; a cultural change was needed with both cyclists and drivers.

 

Frank Gawthrop of Lyndewode Road said that it was important to enforce the requirement that bicycles be lit.  Lyndewode Road was on the east-west cycle route; he estimated that about 10-15% of the very large number using the route did not have a front light, and probably did not realise the danger they were putting themselves in. That cyclists did not have the equipment needed to make them visible at night was a longstanding and major issue in Cambridge.

 

The Deputy PCC replied that if this issue was believed to be a local priority, it should be declared as such.  He could not give a commitment to police enforcement, but he could make a strong case to urge officers locally to carry out enforcement.

 

A Councillor suggested that there was a lack of experience of the south of the county at the top of the police organisation.  He gave the example of a community meeting he had attended at Police Headquarters in Huntingdon about the involvement of minority communities with the police, where all the police officers, speakers and contributors had come from Peterborough.  Both the PCC and the Deputy PCC had a north-Cambridgeshire background; what assurance could those in the south of Cambridgeshire have that this lack of southern experience would not mean a lack of resources for the south.

 

The Deputy PCC said that the meeting in question had been the Assistant Chief Constable’s first attempt to bring minority communities together; there would be future meetings.  There had been no intention that Peterborough should dominate this first meeting, but Peterborough and Cambridge had the highest concentration of crime in the area.  He came from a farming background himself, as did the PCC, so he understood issues of rural crime such as diesel theft.  During his time in the London police, some of his work had been on a nation-wide basis.