Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision:

In order to keep the Cambridge Community Safety Plan current it is updated on an annual basis following production of a Strategic Assessment. The Leader is asked to consider the plan and endorse the chosen priorities.

 

Decision of the Leader:

 

The Leader resolved to:

 

        i.            Endorse the proposed priorities and amendments to the Community Safety Plan agreed by the Community Safety Partnership and set out in section 3.1 of the officer’s report.

 

 Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 The committee received a report from the Director of Customer and Community Services.

 

In response to the report Councillor Herbert made the following comments:

 

        i.            Highlighted the importance of ongoing informal dialogue between the City Council and the new Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC).

      ii.            Raised concern that the valuable dialogue taking place at Area Committees regarding neighbourhood policing may be at risk, and highlighted the importance of ongoing resident engagement in police priorities. 

    iii.            The lack of accountability of the Community Safety Partnership highlighted the need for it to be reviewed.

 

In response to some of the points raised the Leader confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Whilst the Community Safety Partnership was made up of many different partners (not just the City Council), it was important that the views of Councillors be taken on board.

      ii.            The Leader had met with the new PCC and emphasised the importance of ongoing dialogue with the City Council. The PCC had attended recent Area Committees and an all member briefing had been suggested.

    iii.            Agreed with the need to maintain resident engagement with neighbourhood policing, and highlighted the importance of this being done in partnership with the Area Committees. Confirmed that there had been no indication from the PCC that this neighbourhood approach was under threat.

 

In response to member’s questions the Director of Customer and Community confirmed the following

 

        i.            The PCC had no powers to review or alter how the Community Safety Partnership operated.

      ii.            There was no indication that the role of the Probation Service within the Community Safety Partnership would change.

    iii.            Due to variations in the way that the police record anti-social behaviour there was a need to look at baseline figures, which would form part of the final Partnership Plan. Some further work was also required on the figures for victim based acquisitive crime.

   iv.            Emphasised that, whilst there may be an understandable overlap between neighbourhood and citywide priorities, the police would tackle these issues at different levels. 

     v.            Funding was available through the Community Safety Partnership to look at joined up projects.

 

The Leader confirmed that issues raised at Area Committees had formed part of the Strategic Assessment and, as overlaps were expected, work had been done to align neighbourhood and citywide priorities.

 

Councillor Herbert made the following additional comments:

 

        i.            Welcomed the Leader’s comments and highlighted the importance of ongoing dialogue between the Community Safety Partnership and the City Council.

      ii.            Highlighted the need for a better means of engaging the wider community on the citywide police priorities.

    iii.            Highlighted the need for citywide and area priorities to be brought closer together.

 

 

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Leader approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.