Agenda item
Anti Social Behaviour in Brent
Minutes:
Genny Renard (Head of Integrated Community Safety and Development) presented a report to the committee setting out the current work being delivered by the Community Safety Team and their partners to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). Commonly, ASB complaints related to issues such as noise or drinking on the streets; however, ASB encompassed a wide range of issues and it was emphasised that people’s understanding of what constituted ASB could vary. Consequently, the local authority was contributing to work being conducted by the police to clearly define what could be deemed ASB for purposes of police enforcement.
Local Joint Action Groups (LJAGs), which brought together community safety partners to provide a more localised, operational response to tackling ASB, had been established in May 2011. Membership included the police, ward working, Brent CRI, Brent Youth Service, Adaction and a growing number of registered social landlords (RSLs); in addition, other agencies and partners such as victim support and Brent Mental Health could be invited to help resolve particular ASB issues. There were three Brent LJAGs, one for each police safer neighbourhood cluster. Recently, changes had been made to the way in which problems were brought to the LJAGs to ensure that the relevant partner agencies were in attendance as necessary. There were a number of resources available to the LJAGs including considerable police input in the form of five local authority funded police officers, comprising two constables and three police community support officers (PCSOs), as well as three detectives. Other resources included access to shared data, allowing an in depth look at families, particularly in relation to issues of domestic violence and violence against women and girls; demographic data which was being used to map poverty and unemployment in each cluster, and; limited funding from the Mayor of London. Genny Renard noted that the sharing of data had been very valuable, particularly the demographic data which had helped to create a better profile of each area. Funding from the Mayor of London had been used for a number of discrete projects. One of these projects, termed ‘autumn nights’, sought to address the peak in street robberies which occurred around events such as Halloween and Diwali. Another piece of work had been conducted around repeat callers and victims, which it had been found absorbed circa forty per cent of police time. A sample taken in the Kilburn locality had demonstrated that a vast majority of these cases required input from services other than the police, such as mental health services.
The three Brent LJAGs reported to the Brent Joint Action Board, which in turn reported to the Crime Prevention Strategy Groups. This structure had been seen to be successful and a number of other boroughs and the Mayor of London were interested in exploring the project set up further. However, the council was currently waiting before actively engaging with other interested parties, to test that the structure worked effectively.
Genny Renard drew the committee’s attention to paragraph 3.14 of the report which set out information relating to dispersals. Dispersals were used to actively support interventions tackling ASB by a group of individuals in a particular area. Dispersals could be implemented for up to six months and required police and partnership evidence to support an application for consideration by the Police Superintendent. Under dispersal orders the police had the power to disperse individuals displaying ASB in the area covered by the order. Genny Renard advised that ideally dispersals would only be used once in an area and highlighted that the success of these depended upon police presence in that area.
Genny Renard concluded her report to the committee by noting that at appendix 1 and 2, additional information had been provided regarding the legislation that could be used to address anti-social behaviour.
During the subsequent discussion, members raised a number of issues and queries. Councillor Mistry, referring to Appendix 2 of the report, queried if the closure orders contained within the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, could be used to close down a ‘Khat house’. Genny Renard clarified that it could be used for that purpose. This piece of legislation would be used to close down up to 51 premises in Brent over the next few months; however the process required that the occupiers be written to twice, with a second letter being delivered by a police officer before the premises could be closed down. The council would deliver training around the use of these closure orders. Genny Renard further noted that these orders could be applied with regard to premises used for prostitution and people trafficking. A rise in these crimes was expected due to the forthcoming 2012 Olympic Games in London as previous host cities had experienced a rise of up to two hundred per cent in the levels of prostitution. Phil Newby (Director of Strategy, Partnerships and Improvement) added that post-Olympic Games, the levels of prostitution in the host cities had remained high. Genny Renard explained that such issues were not expected to greatly affect the immediate area around the Olympic Village as these would be too highly policed; however it was expected that transport hubs such as Wembley would experience an increase in such activity.
Councillor HB Patel queried if an analysis of ASB by area had been carried out. Sergeant Barron advised that a database of ASB was maintained which allowed the police to carry out a range of follow up activities. All victims of ASB were assessed for the risk of repeat occurrences using a risk assessment matrix. Those deemed to be at high risk were asked to complete a victim questionnaire through which officers would identify a range of factors, including whether the ASB incidents were targeted towards an individual or if several residents were suffering the same experience. Sergeant Barron explained that the police were in the process of improving the database to allow a greater range of statistics to be drawn from it. This would be completed by December. Genny Renard noted that every case brought to an LJAG was risk assessed and there was a victim support officer who was contracted for eighteen hours per week and who attended all LJAG meetings. The Victim Support Officer also trained volunteers to enable them to support victims of ASB until a resolution had been reached or the individual/s felt confident that the problem could be overcome.
Councillor HB Patel queried how long it typically took to resolve issues of noise nuisance. Genny Renard advised that it was dependant on the circumstances of the case. Eighty to eighty-five per cent of cases could be resolved by an officer visiting the person responsible. Information was periodically circulated encouraging residents to simply talk to their neighbours about any minor issues that they had. Genny Renard added that the response of the council was determined by a risk assessment of the issue. Councillor HB Patel further queried whether, if there was a noisy party in progress, passing police officers would stop and address the issue. Sergeant Barron advised that police officers would only investigate in such circumstances if there had been a complaint received or if an individual complained to them at the scene of the event.
In response to several members' queries, Sergeant Barron explained that LJAG meetings took place every three weeks. All the associated partners were just getting to grips with what could be achieved through LJAGs. Genny Renard noted that the complexity of a case determined whether it would be brought to LJAGs. Only those cases where two or more agencies were required to address the issues would be escalated to a meeting of LJAG. This would avoid duplication of work and allowed a greater level of creativity in responding to such issues. Sergeant Barron added that the efficiency of LJAGs would increase as everyone became more familiar with the processes involved.
Councillor Cheese sought assurance that the significant number of repeat callers to the police was not a reflection of issues being inadequately dealt with at the time of the first call. Genny Renard advised that calls to the police could often relate to complex problems which might require input from more than one agency. Consequently, LJAGs would look at this aspect of the repeat calls and would provide a good medium through which various partner agencies could hold each other to account. Twenty per cent of the repeat calls had been found to reflect a legitimate need. Councillor Harrison queried whether a link could be made between the Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) meetings and LJAG meetings. Genny Renard confirmed that such links could be made and this action would be followed up after the meeting.
The Chair queried what types of ASB were most common and if there were any areas that were frequently affected by ASB. Genny Renard confirmed that ASB was not specific to particular areas in the same way as other types of crime. Often ASB was sparked by certain events such Halloween or Bonfire night. The Chair commented that ASB should be mapped to evidence trends and to identify which areas were most affected. Genny Renard explained that further work around this issue was required but that work was in progress to achieve a joint database with the police by December 2011 which would contribute to achieving this aim.
The Chair sought an update regarding the government initiative which had been launched the previous year regarding instant preventative measures. Genny Renard confirmed that this initiative had been halted. Lots of information and training had been provided by the government on this initiative and a proposal had been circulated for consultation. However, whilst the council had submitted a response to this consultation, no further information or any feedback had been received
RESOLVED: -
That the report be noted.
Supporting documents: