Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence and details of any Councillor (or co-optee substitute) nominated to attend this meeting in place of a member of the Committee.

An apology for absence was received from Mr Ken Hazeldine, Chair of Redditch Anti-Harassment Partnership.

To invite Councillors to declare any interest they may have in items on the Agenda and any Party Whip.

There were no declarations of interest nor of any party whip.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Panel that took place on the 19th July 2011 as a correct record.

(Minutes attached)

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on Tuesday 19th July 2011 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider the content of the Redditch Community Safety Partnership Framework and to propose recommendations for further action based on the report if deemed necessary.

(Reports attached)

The Panel received a briefing on the subject of Redditch Community Safety Partnership’s Performance Framework prior to scrutinising the contents of the document.

Members were advised that in previous years local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) had been required to monitor performance in relation to key performance indicators.  These performance indicators had been identified at a national and county level in the form of the Worcestershire Local Area Agreement (LAA).  There had been financial incentives attached to high performance in relation to the LAA.  As the Redditch Community Safety Partnership had performed well the Worcestershire Partnership, which managed the LAA, had been awarded £1.1 million.  A portion of this, £500,000, had been awarded to Redditch in order to deliver the Area of Highest Needs project in Winyates.

Following the change in government in 2010 performance management requirements had altered.  Community Safety Partnerships were no longer required to demonstrate performance in relation to performance indicators.  Instead, Community Safety Partnerships had been encouraged to develop bespoke performance management arrangements.

The Redditch Community Safety Partnership’s performance framework had been introduced in May 2011.  The framework was divided into four sections which reflected the core themes of the Redditch Community Safety Plan: secure homes; protecting communities; reducing re-offending and restorative justice; and safer streets and places. The framework provided the partnership with an opportunity to record crime trends and to monitor performance in relation to the key subsidiary measures for each theme over a twelve month period.  Significantly, the performance management framework focused on local needs and priorities.

The Panel was advised that there would potentially be further developments in relation to the performance management of Community Safety Partnerships in future years.  In particular, the introduction of elected Police and Crime Commissioners in November 2012 was likely to impact on performance management arrangements.  Similarly, Officers confirmed that it was possible that the Localism Act would also impact on Community Safety Partnerships, particularly with regards to planning and licensing arrangements.  However, in both cases the exact implications would not be confirmed until the legislation had been finalised. 

The achievements of the Redditch Community Safety Partnership and the methods by which these achievements were communicated to the public were discussed by the Panel.  The partnership sometimes struggled to communicate their achievements to the public.  However, Members were advised that there were many positive achievements, such as the Redditch Roadway Arts project, whereby distinctive public artwork was displayed in subways and bus shelters located throughout the town.  These acted as visible signs of the partnership’s work and helped people to feel safe.  In addition, the sanctuary scheme, which was designed to help victims of domestic abuse, was cited as an example of a project that was helping to improve the safety of vulnerable local residents.  The Panel agreed to issue a press release outlining these achievements to help the Partnership promote these examples of good practice.

The Panel scrutinised the content of the Redditch Community Safety Partnership’s performance management framework in detail.  In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To consider the contents of the minutes from the Redditch Community Safety Partnership Board’s meeting of 18th May 2011.

(Minutes attached)

The Panel received and commented on the minutes of the meeting of the Redditch Community Safety Partnership’s board that took place on Wednesday 18th May 2011.

The introduction of a joint North Worcestershire Community Safety Partnership was discussed.  The potential to merge the three existing partnerships into one joint partnership had been reviewed by the Worcestershire Safer Communities Board.  The majority of responsible authorities had supported the introduction of a joint Community Safety Partnership for North Worcestershire for capacity reasons. 

Members were advised that a joint partnership for the north of the county had been considered preferable to a joint partnership for the whole county.  The types of crime and community safety issues within the north of the county were considered to be relatively similar.  Furthermore, it was anticipated that collectively a joint partnership representing a larger area within the West Mercia Force area would be in a better position to attract funding from the elected Police and Crime Commissioner than a partnership representing a district.

However, Members had a number of concerns about the introduction of a joint partnership.  In particular, Members suggested that a joint partnership was unlikely to focus in detail on the town.  There was a risk in this context that the specific needs and priorities of Redditch residents would not be addressed.

RECOMMENDED that

Redditch Borough Council does not approve the merger of Redditch Community Safety Partnership (RCSP) with Bromsgrove Community Safety Partnership (BCSP) and Wyre Forest Community Safety Partnership (WFCSP) resulting in the creation of a North Worcestershire Community Safety Partnership (NWCSP); and

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the Redditch Community Safety Partnership board meeting on Wednesday 18th May 2011 be noted.

(During consideration of this item Members discussed matters that necessitated the disclosure of exempt information. It was therefore agreed to exclude the press and public prior to any debate on the grounds that information would be revealed relating to any action taken, or to be taken, in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime).

To consider the contents of the Panel’s Work Programme.

(Report attached)

The Panel noted that they would be proposing questions for the consideration of the Chair of the Redditch Community Safety Partnership at their following meeting in January.  At the suggestion of the Chair it was agreed that the number of questions should be limited to a maximum of four.

RESOLVED that

the Panel’s Work Programme be noted.

“That, under S.100 (A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following matter(s) on the grounds that it/they involve(s) the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraphs (to be specified) of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) of the said Act”.

These paragraphs are as follows:

Subject to the “public interest” test, information relating to:

·         Para 1 – any individual;

·         Para 2 – the identity of any individual;

·         Para 3 – financial or business affairs;

·         Para 4 – labour relations matters;

·         Para 5 – legal professional privilege;

·         Para 6 –  a notice, order or direction;

·         Para 7 – the prevention, investigation or

                     prosecution of crime;

                     and may need to be considered as ‘exempt’.

RESOLVED that

under S.100 I of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following matters on the grounds that they involve(s) the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) of the said Act, as amended.”

• Notes from Redditch Community Safety Partnership.