Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P M Brivio, G Cowan and R J Frost.

There were no substitute members appointed.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest made by members.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 March 2017 (to follow).

The Team Leader – Democratic Support advised that the minutes of the previous meeting would be deferred to a future meeting.

Please note that in accordance with the agreed Protocol for Public Speaking at Overview and Scrutiny, the right to speak does not apply to any items on the agenda.

The right of the public to speak does not apply to the following agenda items: Apologies, Appointment of Substitute Members, Declarations of Interest, Minutes, the Forward Plan, the Scrutiny Work Programme, any agenda item that is not accompanied by a written report and items that are exempt business.

The Team Leader – Democratic Support advised that the Cabinet at its meeting held on 3 April 2017 had deferred making a decision on the recommendation relating to Southern Water pending further clarification as to the purpose and implications of the recommendation.

The recommendation in question had originated at the meeting of the Scrutiny (Community and Regeneration) Committee held on 15 March 2017 (Minute No. 89) at which Southern Water had been scrutinised and the following recommendation had been made to Cabinet:

“That it be recommended to the Cabinet that the officer report for any housing development of over 20 houses considered by the Planning Committee includes a capacity check in respect of the impact on the flood risk in the area.”

Councillor T A Bond, who had moved the original recommendation proposed the following amendment for clarification:

“That it be recommended to the Cabinet that the officer report for any housing development of over 20 houses considered by the Planning Committee includes a capacity check in respect of the impact a change on the flood risk in the area.”

It was moved and duly seconded that the recommendation of 15 March 2017 be amended as above.

RESOLVED:     That the following amended recommendation be submitted to Cabinet:

“That it be recommended to the Cabinet that the officer report for any housing development of over 20 houses considered by the Planning Committee includes a check in respect of a change on the flood risk in the area.”

(a)    Items placed on the agenda by a Member of the Committee or any individual Non-Executive Member

       Any individual Councillor may request that a matter is placed on the agenda of one of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

       There are no items for consideration.

(b)    Call-In

       Executive Decisions may be called-in by the Chairman or Spokesperson of the Scrutiny (Policy and Performance) Committee or any three non-executive members. Call-Ins are heard by the Scrutiny (Policy and Performance) Committee unless it decides to refer the matter to the Scrutiny (Community and Regeneration) Committee.

       There are no items for consideration.

(c)    Public Petitions

       There are no items for consideration.     

There were no items of business for consideration.

The Team Leader – Democratic Support presented the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decision to the Committee for its consideration.

RESOLVED:   That the Notice of Forthcoming Key Decision be noted.

The Team Leader – Democratic Support presented the Scrutiny Work Programme to the Committee for its consideration.

Members were advised that letters/emails had been sent to the major Registered Providers of Social Housing in the district inviting them to attend a meeting of the committee. If Members had any key questions they should provide these in writing to the Team Leader – Democratic Support.

RESOLVED:   That the Work Programme be noted.

To receive an update on the work of the Community Safety Unit.

The Head of Community Services and the Community Safety and CCTV Manager were present to provide an update on the work of the community safety team and to answer members’ questions.

The Head of Community Services advised that following a redesign of the service, the Council had brought the following services together:

·         Community Safety

·         Community Development

·         CCTV

·         Communications

·         Funding

There had also been changes to create a better use of space to facilitate a multi-agency hub. The hub currently involved Pie Factory, Porchlight (family support worker), Kent County Council (troubled families partnership manager) and the Department for Work and Pensions. 

The Community Safety Unit was responsible for dealing with the following matters:

·         Anti-Social Behaviour

·         Safeguarding

·         Vulnerable Victims (Adult and Young People)

·         Community Safety concerns affecting large areas

·         High Hedges

·         Licensing issues

·         Assist other agencies / departments (within DDC) with issues eg. EH, Property Services, Parks and Open Spaces and RSL and Social Services (vulnerable victims)

·         Gathering evidence for cases (i.e. Closure Order, Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO)

There was a morning briefing to review the previous 24 hour activity and fortnightly ASB meetings to discuss cases, vulnerable victims, hot spot areas and persons of interest. The Community Safety Unit was composed of officers from Dover District Council, Kent County Council and Kent Police.

The Community Safety Unit also provided support to local community groups in terms of equipment to assist in clearing graffiti.

Q1.    How do you assess the effectiveness of the Community Safety Unit – qualitatively and quantitatively?

          The number of cases that were received was recorded and there was currently a performance indicator that measured the number of cases closed within 30 days. As part of the assessment processes for cases the impact of the anti-social behaviour was an important consideration.

          Once a case was closed a survey form was sent out for completion although when required the unit would try to meet with someone in person to obtain feedback.

          The service was also trying to raise its profile to encourage people to use it where there was a need and to that end it was attending community events to promote the service. There would also be an open day for councillors to visit the unit and gain a better understanding of its work.

Q2.    What are your current priorities, and how are these selected?

          The priorities were selected based on data provided through local intelligence, the Community Safety Partnership and national priorities.

Q3.    What sort of information will you be providing about Anti-Social Behaviour incidence on a ward basis – the previous statistics were rather confusing in relation to what was included and what was not.

The Head of Community Services advised that the service was trying to be more open and transparent in providing information to councillors while still respecting the privacy needs of partner organisations. Acknowledging concerns that the previous monthly Community Safety Unit ward reports for councillors were not as clear as should have been, a new format for monthly ward statistics had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.