Meeting documents

An apology for absence was received from Councillor K Jones.

No interests were declared.

RESOLVED (unanimously):
That subject to amending min. no. 53(1) to refer to the Cabinet member for Regeneration & Leisure, the minutes of the meetings held on 8 March 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.
?

Matters Arising from Previous Meeting(s)
The committee considered the list of matters arising from the last and earlier meetings. It was agreed to remove all the matters from the list, with the exception of the following:

23/06/15 ? Performance, Budget and Risk monitoring report ? year end 2014/15 (April 2014 ? March 2015) ? min. no.5 (7)
08/12/15 ? Cabinet Member Update ? Finance & Resources ? min. no.34 (3 & 5)
26/01/16 ? Cabinet Member Update ? Neighbourhoods & Streetscene ? min. no.41 (5 & 6) ? for (5) & (6) more information was requested
26/01/16 ? Waste Management Partnership ? min. no.42 (3)
26/01/16 ? Worden Park Vision Plan ? progress update ? min. no.43 (3, 4 & 6)
08/03/16 ? Consultation on the Draft Housing Framework ? min. no.53 (3)
08/03/16 ? Cabinet Member Update ? Regeneration & Leisure ? min. no.54 (4, 6, & 7)
?

The chairman welcomed Councillor Michael Green (Cabinet member for Housing & Healthy Communities), Mark Gaffney (Director of Neighbourhoods, Public Health & Asset Management) and Inspector Barff-Lewis (Lancashire Constabulary) who attended, addressed and responded to the committee.

The Cabinet member felt that there had been good performance over the last 12 months with crime figures remaining low but as previously mentioned there could come a point when this rose. The partnership needed to continue to work with partners to keep the figures low.

Referring back to the last time the partnership was considered by the committee (min. no.36, 9 December 2014 refers) it was indicated that the partnership was working well and increasingly with partners, including the council?s licensing and environmental health teams. It was mentioned that Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) was a threat and being addressed county wide. Based on the previous debate, the committee requested an update from the partnership on CSE and working with the council. Inspector Barff-Lewis indicated that the partnership met weekly with partners using the Anti-Social Behaviour Risk Assessment Conference (ASBRAC) as the process for supporting victims of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and managing risk. The partners included police, housing, wellbeing intervention service, licensing and community safety and operation with trading standards (ie rogue traders). Hot spots were targeted with continual re-assessment at meetings. In respect of CSE, the police had an active deter team working in the division which managed intelligence, perpetrators and locations. There was a lot of work with partners? teams such as in social services (vulnerable/missing from home etc at risk from CSE) intervening as much as possible using additional resources such as social media and telephony. It was a better picture than 2014. At neighbourhood/forum level safeguarding activity was as necessary. The inspector gave an example of a case from last year. The service was more pro-active than in 2014 with increased training and perpetrators targeted.

In respect of the partnership and licensing the Inspector indicated that there had been gaps in co-ordination due to the absence of council officers, such as a recent rogue trader exercise which had involved HMRC, VOSA and trading standards etc. Regarding the licensing of taxis, the police confirmed this process was wholly the responsibility of the council including DBS (disclosure & barring service) checks on individuals. As indicated earlier there were joint enforcement operations with other agencies/partners.

The Director expressed concern that the committee?s enquiries appeared to be veering into the council?s current investigation into the licensing function and away from tonight?s agenda item. To allay those concerns, the committee stated it had no desire to discuss the on-going investigation at the council. However, it felt it relevant to ask the partnership at this meeting, if concerns about a council service arose at what point would the partnership be involved. In particular concerning CSE, the report on the Rotherham case had criticised the local scrutiny committee and South Ribble?s scrutiny committee did not want to be similarly criticised. The committee was advised that there was an information sharing protocol that was regularly updated. It provided for information to be shared (two way) with members of the Community Safety Partnership at an appropriate time, this included the police neighbourhood team, deter team or any investigating departments concerning vulnerable people (adult/child) etc.

In response to an enquiry regarding detailed statistical information, Inspector Barff-Lewis informed the committee that the police had moved away from a target/performance driven approach. All crimes were now recorded automatically (including those reported by a 3rd party). Figures indicated the police was detecting better, was intervening correctly and now had increased discretion to use restorative justice. If there was a crime spike the police would ensure that resources were available to deal with it.

The police confirmed it reviewed/measured/amended its operations, and McDonalds/Tesco was given as an example. The anti-social behaviour had reduced at these locations with a combination of interventions, target hardening, increase use of police powers (ie dispersal orders). The partnership aimed at early intervention ? individuals given acceptable behaviour contracts. The level of anti-social behaviour was reviewed daily. Any identified crime patterns received additional resources including use of social media (awareness raising).

Responding to an enquiry about members of the partnership, the committee was informed that there was a very good working relationship between members and there was always room for more. The different matters in hand dictated the lead member which was not always the police. Some members were brought in for specific topics/items. The partnership was happy with the level of commitment displayed by its members. In respect of involving members of the public, the partnership used a variety of approaches which included social media, the council?s neighbourhood forums and some local councils (ie Penwortham Town Council). The Inspector added that if there we felt to be any gaps or instances of her team not attending then please let her know as they wanted to ink in with the eyes and ears of the community. She welcomed any suggestions to increase engagement with the elderly.

In respect of Multi Agency Tasking and Coordinating Group (MATAC) meetings and comments in December 2014, Inspector Barff-Lewis indicated that time had moved on. There were now weekly meetings with such as Chorley, South Ribble, housing and licensing. These actioned a lot more and more quickly. There was a meeting with Penwortham Town Council every 5/6 weeks and actions passed to partners. If urgent they would be dealt with or a report be presented to next meeting. The partnership was working a lot smarter/slicker with the use of neighbourhood orders etc. She added that two Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBO) had been issued which could only be done with the support of partners. At present an injunction was being sought regarding a domestic violence offender and meetings were needed to pull information together.

Inspector Barff-Lewis commented that the partnership was now working better with priorities and Community Beat Managers (CBM) were working differently (with an increased role/responsibility). She did not anticipate that reduced resources would detrimentally effect the working of the partnership. The Director added that at South Ribble there used to be a community safety team which was now an officer on domestic violence with generic support from others. The partnership was introducing smarter/ better ways of working. Regarding visibility to the public on the street, whilst Police Community Support Officers (PCSO) would attend more meetings these would be prioritised. There would also be targeted patrols providing visibility and to catch people. There was a mix of tactics and it was very important to show the public people were out there.

The Cabinet member confirmed that the impact on the reduced funding for the South Ribble Refuge was significant. This was something he was not content about stating that all could lobby in support of keeping the refuge running. He had lobbied earlier this year.

Responding to an enquiry about the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Police Act 2014, Inspector Barff-Lewis indicated that this had replaced the use of Ant-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and the partnership had used new tools and powers such as CBOs, Community Protection Notice Warning Letters, domestic violence injunction, and Dispersal Orders (DO) as part of a series of measures available. The Inspector confirmed that there had not been any Community Calls for Action (CCA) in Lancashire. She understood there had previously been a six month pilot in Manchester where there had been three CCAs. The Community Protection Notice Warning Letters had related to noise nuisance. In respect of a Public Space Protection Order, this was a measure further along the line for use if earlier tools/actions failed.

Regarding the 92% of residents with confidence in South Ribble being a safe place to live, the committee was not convinced this was an accurate reflection as this was the result of a survey of only 500 people who had had contact with Gateway. The committee also felt that as the council had previously indicated it was going digital there were other ways it could gather information from residents which should be explored.

The committee had previously expressed an interest in the partnership?s work on domestic violence. In the reported information there appeared to be different figures and it was wondered if there was a correlation between them. If there had been a 26% reduction that was fantastic or was there under reporting. It was not known what the level of under reporting was. The partnership was very supportive of victims and to reduce domestic violence attacks. It had campaigns to raise awareness during football tournaments, such as the forthcoming European Cup 2016. Every case was reported in to the hub for partners to pick up. If they were regarded as high risk the case would be passed through to MARAC and onto MASH, as part of a quite a smooth process.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1. the committee thanks the Cabinet member for Housing & Healthy Communities, Director of Neighbourhoods, Public Health & Asset Management and Inspector Barff-Lewis;
2. the committee welcomes the report and its positive comments;
3. the committee continues to monitor the progress of the partnership;
4. the committee requests the Cabinet member to continue to lobby and work with partners to safeguard the future of the South Ribble Refuge;
5. the committee recommends that the partnership reviews the way it measures resident confidence in South Ribble being a safe place; and
6. the committee looks forward to receiving clarity on the domestic violence figures within the report.
?

The chairman welcomed Councillor Bennett (Cabinet member for Finance & Resources), Mandy Catterall (Property Services Manager), Mark Gaffney (Director of Neighbourhoods, Public Health & Asset Management) and Neal Riley (Cushman & Wakefield) attended, addressed and responded to the committee.

The item began with a presentation to the committee from Neal Riley on behalf of the council?s consultants on the council?s review covering scope, approach and initial findings. A copy of the presentation is appended to these minutes.

The review (phase 1) was not yet complete and it was hoped the committee would find this update useful. It was a high level assessment of the council?s assets, did they support its objectives, what was the direction of the estate and look at the everyday estate management. Drivers included financial pressure on the council and borough priorities such as the City Deal. The review would also challenge the council?s portfolio as a critical friend. The council?s assets in this phase included the Civic centre, Moss Side Depot, Worden Park, commercial portfolio and Leyland Market.

The majority of the portfolio had been inherited by the council with no new acquisitions in the last 15 years and was felt overall to be in reasonable shape.

In respect of public and market engagement, the committee was informed that this stage had largely been a desktop exercise. The next stage was to engage with such as LCC, NHS and the police (to see what were their plans). The Cabinet member added that the council continued to have negotiations about buildings such as the Civic Centre and Worden Park. He was confident the council would get the right partner for Worden Park.

The committee welcomed the report and the opportunity to use scrutiny as the review developed. Social/political issues were likely to arise and it was important scrutiny was up to speed before any possible controversial decisions were taken which it could help with. It was commented that if the council gave away all its commercial properties no one would be bothered, but if it was suggested for Worden Park there would be a public uproar. The Cabinet member commented that the discussion would evolve with the final strategy which would include Worden Park.

The committee was informed that the council carried out a procurement exercise through the CHEST which resulted in the council appointing Cushman & Wakefield.

The Cabinet member responding to an enquiry about the process, indicating this would be a never ending process, developing a framework/platform for future acquisition/disposal/holding of council assets. It was hoped that the draft report would be concluded in 4-6 weeks. Mr Riley stated that they would not steer the council down a dead end.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that:
1. the committee thanks the Cabinet member for Finance & Resources, Director of Neighbourhoods, Public Health & Asset Management) and Property Services Manager and Neal Riley for their attendance and responses to the committee;
2. the committee welcomes the presentation and the Cabinet member involving scrutiny in the review; and
3. the committee looks forward to receiving the final report on the Strategic Asset and Property Review ? Phase 1.
?

a) Verbal update on Lancashire County Council's Health Scrutiny Committee ?
The chairman reported he had not attended a meeting since the last meeting of the committee on 8 March.
b) Member feedback on meeting and training attended on behalf of the committee ? The chairman reported he had attended a seminar at Birmingham University on the future of scrutiny.
c) Scrutiny Work Programme
- Health Steering Group ? Councillor Wharton?s reported a meeting with the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Chorley & South Ribble CCG which included a good Q & A session, the CCG was preparing an action plan for South Ribble which the committee could scrutinise. The visit to the NW Ambulance Service was next week looking at the control centre, response times and A&E transfer times.
- Highways Task Group ? Councillor Mrs Ball reported that evidence was being reviewed and the county council?s Road Safety Team was to meet the group providing more figures and data.
- Council?s preparedness for major incidents, including flooding ? on 17 March a number of people had been interviewed and a response/report was being drafted for presentation to the group before coming to the committee.
- External use of the Banqueting Suite and Catering Service ? the group had met on 31 March and spoken to Mandy Catterall (Property Services Manager).
d) Cabinet and Scrutiny Forward Plans ? these were noted.
?