implications of changes to policing in surrey - …...email: [email protected] lead...

Executive Report

Ward(s) affected: All Wards

Report of: Director of Resources

Author: John Armstrong

Tel: 01483 444102

Email: [email protected]

Lead Councillor responsible: Graham Ellwood

Tel: 07899 846626


Date: 18 July 2017

Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey - Report and recommendations of the Overview and

Scrutiny Committee

Executive Summary The Executive is asked to consider the issues raised by the Task and Finish group, which examined the implications of changes to policing in Surrey, and the recommendations made in that regard by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) at its meeting on 6 June 2017. The report considered by the OSC is attached as Annex A. The Task and Finish Group made four key recommendations, which were amended slightly by the OSC, as set out below:

R1: That the Executive revisit the decision to refocus the Community Safety Wardens, with a view to formally widening the Community Warden role to include community safety elements.

R2: That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee establish a task and finish group to further review the possible reorganisation or expansion of the Council’s anti-social behaviour service.

R3: That the Executive ensure the Council considers adopting a broader range can use the full range of community safety powers and measures appropriate, including CSAS accreditation, in order to help provide the most responsive and effective enforcement possible.

R4: That, with due attention to sustainable costings and budgetary restrictions, the Executive establish a Joint Enforcement Team that includes direct police participation via an agreed Service Level Agreement and is tasked and co-ordinated by Guildford’s Joint Action Group.

The OSC resolved that:

(i) the report and findings of the Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey task group be commended to the Executive;

(ii) the Executive be requested to provide an update, within six months, on

Recommendations 1, 3, and 4 of the report of the Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey task group; and

(iii) in accordance with Recommendation 2 of the report of the Implications of

Changes to Policing in Surrey task group, a task and finish group be established to further review the possible reorganisation or expansion of the Council’s anti-social behaviour service.

Under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 12 (c), the Executive must consider and respond within two months to reports and recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, indicating what action is proposed. Recommendation to Executive The Executive is asked to consider and respond to the OSC’s recommendations on this matter. The response of the Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety to the work of the OSC is detailed in section 5 below. Reason for Recommendation: To comply with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 12 (c).

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 This report sets out a proposal to address recommendations made by the Overview

and Scrutiny Committee in respect of the implications of the changes to policing in Surrey.

2. Strategic Priorities 2.1 The issues addressed in this report support the Council’s Strategic Framework, in

particular the Society theme. 3. Introduction 3.1 In 2016, Overview and Scrutiny established a task and finish group to investigate the

implications of policing changes, with particular reference to the impact on Guildford Borough Council services.

3.2 The officer report attached at the beginning of Annex A provides a brief outline of the

overview and scrutiny task group’s work, including the rationale for the group’s recommendations (within section 6 of the report). However, it is advised that a full and proper understanding and appreciation of the task group’s investigation and proposals is best obtained from consideration of the group’s full report (also attached as part of Annex A), particularly as the group’s proposals are distilled into a small number of key recommendations.

4. Recommendations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee 4.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee made four recommendations (three of which

are directed to the Executive):


R2: That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee establish a task and finish group to further review the possible reorganisation or expansion of the Council’s anti-social behaviour service.

R3: That the Executive ensure the Council considers adopting a broader range of community safety powers and measures appropriate, including CSAS accreditation, in order to help provide the most responsive and effective enforcement possible.


4.2 How the Executive takes forward the findings and recommendations from Overview

and Scrutiny is discussed in section 5 below. 5. Next Steps 5.1 Following discussions between officers and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny

Committee, the Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety suggests that all four recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny task group are taken forward collectively by a single group.

5.2 Rather than Overview and Scrutiny and the Executive separately progressing the

matters raised in the task group’s report, in two different groups, a single group is proposed. Continuing the work in this manner will avoid duplication, ensure a co-ordinated approach, and deliver an effective response to the issues and proposals discussed in the Overview and Scrutiny report.

5.3 On balance, the Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety feels that the

best approach is the establishment of an Executive working group chaired by himself and including interested members of the Overview and Scrutiny Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey task and finish group (and perhaps other councillors).

6. Financial implications 6.1 There are no direct, immediate financial implications arising at this stage. It is

envisaged that the costs of progressing the recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and of investigating the Council’s anti-social behaviour service will be met from existing officer resources.

7. Equality and Diversity implications 7.1 There are no equality and diversity implications arising directly from this report. 8. Legal implications 8.1 There are no legal implications arising directly from this report. 9. Human Resource implications 9.1 There is a proposal (Recommendation 1 of the task group’s report) to change the

nature of the responsibilities of some posts. If this proposal, or similar changes in posts, were progressed then relevant HR processes would need to be followed (including periods of consultation and so on).

10. Conclusion 10.1 The Executive is asked to consider and respond to the OSC’s report and

recommendations. The suggested response is for a single group to take forward the issues and proposals identified by Overview and Scrutiny’s investigation. This approach would consist of an Executive working group chaired by the relevant Lead Councillor and include members of the Overview and Scrutiny task group (and other interested Councillors).

10.2 Importantly, the potential merit in this approach has been discussed and agreed with

the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 11. Appendices

Annex A: “Report of the Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey, Overview and

Scrutiny Task and Finish Group”, (Report submitted to Overview and

Scrutiny Committee on 6 June 2017, including the report of the Overview and Scrutiny task group.)

Overview and Scrutiny Committee Report Annex A

Report of Managing Director

Author: James Dearling, Scrutiny Manager

Tel: 01483 444141


Date: 6 June 2017

Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey — Report of the Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish

Group

Executive Summary: The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is asked to consider the report of the task and finish group it established in March 2016 to look at the implications of changes to policing in Surrey (attached as Appendix 1). The group’s report provides an assessment of the effects of the policing changes on the Council and identifies a number of issues with potential to impact community safety in the Borough. To help address these concerns, the task group’s report puts forward four recommendations for endorsement by the Committee. Recommendation: That the Committee,

(iv) commend to the Executive the report and findings of the Implications of

Changes to Policing in Surrey task group.

(v) request an update from the Executive, within six months, on Recommendations 1, 3, and 4 of the report of the Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey task group.

(vi) establish, in accordance with Recommendation 2 of the report of the

Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey task group, a task and finish group to further review the possible expansion of the Council’s anti-social behaviour service.

Reason for recommendation: To further improve the Council’s approach to community safety.

1. Purpose of report

1.1 At its meeting in March 2016, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee established a task and finish group to investigate concerns about the implications for the Borough of announced policing changes in Surrey. The task group’s conclusions and recommendations are set out in its report, attached as Appendix 1.

1.2 The Committee is asked to adopt the report of the Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey task group and commend its findings to the Executive. Recommendations 1, 3, and 4 of the task group report are directed to the Executive.

1.3 Recommendation 2 within the task and finish group’s report proposes additional work by Overview and Scrutiny to assess the potential need for expanding the Council’s anti-social behaviour service.

1.4 This officer report provides a brief outline of the task group’s work; a full and proper understanding and appreciation of the task group’s reasoning and evidence is best obtained from reading their report.

2. Strategic priorities 2.1 Improving community safety supports the ‘Our Society’ theme of the Council’s

Corporate Plan, including the strategic priority of maintaining low levels of crime in the Borough.

3. The establishment and role of the task group 3.1 On 16 March 2016, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee established a task and finish

group to investigate concerns about the implications for the Borough of announced policing changes in Surrey. The key aim for this group was to investigate the most significant implications of the changes being made to policing in Surrey, and how these could be addressed.

3.2 The implementation of PIYN (Policing in Your Neighbourhood) in April 2016, together with a more effective management of demand, represented a significant change to Surrey Police’s model of policing. Of particular interest to the task group’s review was the reduced size of Surrey Police’s Safer Neighbourhood Team in Guildford.

3.3 The task group membership comprises:

Councillor Nigel Kearse (Chairman)

Councillor Marsha Moseley

Councillor Jo Randall

Councillor Caroline Reeves

Councillor Pauline Searle

4. The task group’s evidence-gathering

4.1 The task group sought evidence from a range of Council officers, the relevant Lead

Councillors, and the local Borough police Inspector. In addition, the group spoke to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, and met representatives of the Royal Surrey County Hospital and the Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust for Surrey. The task group was able to visit Surrey Police’s contact centre to help their understanding of some of the matters involved.

4.2 As part of its review, the task group gathered written information on the current position

in the Borough in relation to anti-social behaviour and environmental enforcement powers. This material was considered in the context of the corresponding resources and arrangements deployed by other local authorities in the county, including Joint Enforcement Teams (JETs) established in Spelthorne and at Reigate and Banstead.

4.3 Other notable information considered by the task group includes material from the Council’s JET proposals working group and Surrey Police’s post-implementation review of its PIYN change.

4.4 From the task group’s report it is apparent that the review received notable assistance

from Surrey Police. 5. Findings 5.1 The task group’s report identifies a number of issues with potential to impact on

community safety in the Borough. The group finds that these issues interrelate, but can be organised under four sections:

Demand reduction (the police no longer responding to non-police matters and handling non-urgent matters differently)

Reduced public engagement by the police

An enforcement capability gap?

Communication between partners

Section 4 of the task group’s report discusses these issues. 5.2 The task group’s report concludes that not all the concerns associated with the policing

changes are attributable to the changes; a number existed before and have appear to have been intensified or become more obvious due to PIYN.

5.3 While not making any related recommendation, the task group’s report does draw

attention to the difficulties around police response and attendance at local hospitals and ongoing concerns at the increase in police attendance at hospital sites in the county.

6. Task group’s proposals and recommendations 6.1 The task group’s proposals are arranged within Section 5 of the group’s report,

organised under 4 headings:

Community Safety Wardens

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and CSAS1

Joint Enforcement Teams: theory and practice

The Council’s ethos 6.2 The task group distils its proposals into four key recommendations, three of which are

directed to the Executive. One recommendation is directed to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and suggests additional work to review the possible expansion of the Council’s anti-social behaviour service.

6.3 The group’s four recommendations:


1 CSAS - The Police Reform Act 2002 includes the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme to which chief

constables can choose to accredit employed people already in roles which contribute to maintaining and improving

community safety with limited but targeted powers.

R2: That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee establish a task and finish group to further review the possible expansion of the Council’s anti-social behaviour service.

R3: That the Executive ensure the Council adopts and can use the full range of community safety powers and measures appropriate, including CSAS accreditation, in order to help provide the most responsive and effective enforcement possible.


6.4 The detailed reasoning for each recommendation is explained in the task group’s report. Presented below is no more than a brief summary.

6.5 The task group recommends the role of the Council’s Community Wardens be widened

to include community safety elements released from the role in 2013. The task group indicates that the decision to refocus the Community Safety Warden team towards community development, and away from crime and disorder, was made alongside ongoing and increasing investment in neighbourhood policing by Surrey Police. In light of the policing changes, the group’s report suggests it is sensible to revisit the 2013 change.

6.6 The task group’s second recommendation proposes additional work to assess the

potential need for expanding the Council’s anti-social behaviour service. Of particular relevance to any further review is the task group questioning of whether the Council should be offering a tenure-neutral anti-social behaviour service.

6.7 The third recommendation from the task group suggests that in the context of the

policing changes the Council seeks the fullest range of appropriate powers to deal with low-level crime and disorder.

6.8 The final recommendation concerns the establishment and arrangements for a Joint

Enforcement Team. It will be noted that since the task group drafted its report the Executive has expanded its enforcement activities to introduce a JET-style approach, including an expansion of two additional officers and a role for the Joint Action Group in prioritising and tasking the expanded Council enforcement team.2 However, the task group’s report recommends more than a Council enforcement team and advocates direct police participation, specified and agreed.

7. Financial implications 7.1 There are no direct, immediate financial implications arising at this stage, aside from

the possible establishment of a further Overview and Scrutiny task and finish group (the task group’s Recommendation 2). The cost of Overview and Scrutiny undertaking this additional work on the possible expansion of the Council’s anti-social behaviour service will be met from the existing Scrutiny Budget.

8. Equality and Diversity implications 8.1 There are no equality and diversity implications arising directly from this report.

2 Minute EX85, Executive meeting, Guildford Borough Council, 18 April 2017.

9. Legal implications 9.1 There are no legal implications arising directly from this report. 9.2 The Executive must respond within two months to reports and recommendations of the

Overview and Scrutiny Committee, indicating what action is proposed. 10. Human Resource implications 10.1 There is a proposal (Recommendation 1 of the task group’s report) to change the

nature of the responsibilities of some posts. If this proposal was progressed relevant HR processes would need to be followed (including periods of consultation and so on).

11. Conclusion 11.1 While its review was prompted by the changes to policing, the task group concludes

that not all the concerns associated with the policing changes are attributable to the changes. A number of matters of concern are seen by the task group as having predated the changes which served to intensify or make matters become more obvious.

11.2 The task group’s report identifies a number of concerns with potential to impact on

community safety and proposes four specific recommendations at this stage to tackle these issues. All of the group’s recommendations are directed to decision-makers within the Council. Yet, the breadth of the group’s review and its findings suggests the discussion has a wider interest and relevance beyond the Council.

12. Appendices

Appendix 1: Report of the Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey, Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group

Appendix 1

Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey

Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group

Report to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Guildford Borough Council

________________________________

Contents

Foreword________________________________________ 2

Executive Summary________________________________________ 3

1. Introduction________________________________________ 5

Background 5

Reasons for the review 5

2. Current situation________________________________________ 6

3. Process________________________________________ 7

4. Key issues and findings ____________________________________ 7

Demand reduction 7

Reduced public engagement 8

An enforcement capability gap? 10

Communication 11

5. Proposals and key recommendations ____________________________________ 11

Community Safety Wardens 11

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and CSAS 12

Joint Enforcement Teams: theory and practice 14

The Council’s ethos 14

6. Conclusion ______________________________________ 15

Appendices 17

Selected references 51

Foreword________________________________________

Community safety is about helping communities to be and feel safe. It is not just a matter for police and

fire and rescue authorities to address, but is an issue in which councils - indeed everyone – can rightfully

play a part.

This review identifies issues with potential to impact on community safety in the Borough. Within the

following report, the issues are surveyed and key recommendations put forward to help address the

knock-on effects of the 2016 changes to policing in Surrey. The impact of the changes on Council

services was a particular area for investigation and the task group’s formal proposals are directed to

decision-makers within the Council. Nonetheless, the accounts of the perceived impact of the policing

changes on the NHS locally, together with the apparently ongoing issues that the police perceive as

generated or connected to NHS premises, cannot help but cause concern.

The task group was cross-party and worked hard to understand its brief, listen to witnesses, sift and

interpret evidence, and develop and agree recommendations. The group pursued its task within a

framework of providing ‘critical friend’ challenge to decision-makers and driving improvement in public

services. As such, the proposals to improve services should not be interpreted or represented as a

judgment on the current work or services.

I must thank everyone who attended the group’s meetings or contributed to this review with written

information. I would particularly like to thank the (then) Borough Inspector Graham Barnett and the

representatives of the NHS locally for sharing their expertise and experience. The provision of Surrey

Police’s post-implementation review of its changes and the group’s visit to the Surrey Police contact

centre were especially useful in gaining a better understanding of the issues.

Councillor Nigel Kearse

Chair of the Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey Task Group

3

Executive Summary________________________________________

Background Surrey Police has relatively recently introduced significant changes to the way it operates. The launch of the Policing In Your Neighbourhood (PIYN) model of policing in April 2016, together with a more effective management of demand by Surrey Police, has altered the focus and resources of the police. In Guildford, these policing changes were deemed such a significant development that the possible implications warranted review. Guildford Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee tackled this task by establishing a small group of non-Executive Councillors to investigate in-depth and report back with recommendations. This report is the result of that work. As part of its investigation, the task group was keen to gain an understanding of the implementation of PIYN. However, it is important to understand that Overview and Scrutiny was not tasked with evaluating PIYN as such. The central role for the group’s enquiry was to address a key question:

What are the most significant implications of the changes being planned by Surrey Police, what are the implications for the Council and other agencies and how will these be addressed?

The impact of the change on Council services was a particular issue for investigation and the group’s formal proposals are directed to the Council’s Executive. Key issues and findings The group identified a number of principal issues with potential to impact on community safety in the Borough: the police’s handling of low-level demand, reduced public engagement by the police, a gap in enforcement capability, and a need for improved communication between partners. These are considered in section 4 of the group’s report. The group concludes that a number of these issues existed before PIYN and have either been exacerbated or simply become more noticeable because of the policing changes. Proposals and key recommendations The group’s proposals are distilled into four key recommendations: R1: That the Executive revisit the decision to refocus the Community Safety Wardens, with a view to

formally widening the Community Warden role to include community safety elements. R2: That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee establish a task and finish group to further review the

possible expansion of the Council’s anti-social behaviour service. R3: That the Executive ensure the Council adopts and can use the full range of community safety

powers and measures appropriate, including CSAS accreditation, in order to help provide the most responsive and effective enforcement possible.

R4: That, with due attention to sustainable costings and budgetary restrictions, the Executive establish

a Joint Enforcement Team that includes direct police participation via an agreed Service Level Agreement and is tasked and co-ordinated by Guildford’s Joint Action Group.

The detailed rationale underpinning each recommendation is expounded within the body of the report and summarised below. The group recommends the role of the Council’s Community Wardens be expanded to include community safety elements judged surplus in 2013. The decision to refocus the Community Safety Warden team towards community development, and away from crime and disorder, was taken against a backdrop of ongoing and increasing investment in neighbourhood policing by Surrey Police. The group

suggest that the impact of the policing changes mean it is judicious to revisit the 2013 decision to refocus the role of the Community Safety Wardens. The group’s second recommendation proposes additional work to assess the potential need for expanding the Council’s anti-social behaviour service. The third recommendation suggests that in the context of the policing changes the Council should proactively seek the fullest range of appropriate powers to deal with low-level crime and disorder. The final recommendation concerns the establishment of a Joint Enforcement Team, but one which includes the fullest possible integration with the police to ensure continued effective partnership working between the Council and Surrey Police. The task group calls for more than a Council enforcement team and asks for direct police participation, specified and agreed. All of the group’s recommendations are directed to decision-makers within the Council. And yet, the group anticipates that the discussion of the issues and its findings may perhaps have a wider interest and relevance than just for the Council.

5

1. Introduction________________________________________

Background 1.1 On 15 March 2016, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee established a task and finish group to

investigate the implications of the Policing In Your Neighbourhood (PIYN) changes. PIYN was implemented formally in early April 2016 and, as intended, introduced significant change to how Surrey Police operates.

1.2 The task group was asked to investigate the implications of the policing changes, with particular reference to the impact on Guildford Borough Council services. While the task group was keen to gain an understanding of the implementation of PIYN, it is relevant to note that Overview and Scrutiny was not tasked with evaluating PIYN as such.

1.3 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee identified a key question for the task group to answer:

What are the most significant implications of the changes being planned by Surrey Police, what are the implications for the Council and other agencies and how will these be addressed?

1.4 The original, overarching objectives for the group’s investigation were threefold:

Understand the implications of the policing changes in Surrey, particularly for Council services, and clarify future roles and responsibilities.

Investigate the anti-social behaviour and environmental enforcement powers available to the Council and Surrey Police.3

Consider options for continued effective partnership working between the Council and Surrey Police.

1.5 The task group membership remained unchanged throughout the review and comprises:

Councillor Nigel Kearse (Chair) Councillor Marsha Moseley Councillor Jo Randall Councillor Caroline Reeves Councillor Pauline Searle

1.6 The following officers supported the group during its investigations: Marie Clarke – Community Safety Manager Andy Coumbe – Community Warden James Dearling – Scrutiny Manager Emma Felgate – Customer Services Manager Justine Fuller – Environmental Health Manager Samantha Hutchison – Community Development Manager Philip O’Dwyer – Director of Community Services Jo Packman – Community Warden Chris Wheeler – Fleet and Waste Services Manager James Whiteman – Director of Environment

Reasons for the review 1.7 The decision to undertake this Overview and Scrutiny investigation was prompted by concerns

with the Policing In Your Neighbourhood changes introduced by Surrey Police in 2016. The

3 The terms of reference for the review are within the Scoping Document attached as Appendix 2.

change to the model of policing, particularly the altered focus and resources, was deemed such a substantial development that the possible implications warranted review.

1.8 Yet, in the course of its review, the task group felt increasingly that its investigation was advisable

and timely for additional reasons. 1.9 At an early stage in its investigation, the group was advised that officers were reviewing the

Council’s environmental enforcement and looking to develop a Council-wide enforcement policy. Moreover, through a working group of officers and Lead Councillors, the Council had begun working up proposals, including a business case, for a Joint Enforcement Team (JET). Consequently, the group is mindful that costed proposals for a JET initiative will be forthcoming from the Executive.

1.10 A number of issues and concerns were thrown up or revealed through the group’s research into

the implications of the PIYN changes and are discussed in section 4 below. Not all of these matters can be attributed entirely, or even primarily, to the PIYN changes; it will be argued that a number of these issues existed before PIYN and have either been exacerbated or simply become more noticeable because of the policing changes.

2. Current situation________________________________________

2.1 Before a discussion of the group’s work, a brief summary of PIYN is necessary. 2.2 Policing In Your Neighbourhood is presented as a model that will deliver savings and better

address the changing nature of crime. It is seen as a more sustainable approach than the previous method of working but one that is recognised will take up to ten years to develop fully.

2.3 During 2015, Surrey Police reviewed the way in which it provided neighbourhood and response

policing. As a result, a new way of working launched in April 2016 (PIYN). The new model of policing in Surrey has been recognised by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary as leading to ‘significant changes to how the force operates.’4 The PIYN approach introduces omni-competent policing and aligns police uniform resources to boroughs and districts, whilst retaining command at a divisional level.

2.4 Of particular interest to the task group’s review was the reduced size of Surrey Police’s Safer

Neighbourhood Team in Guildford. Under PIYN, resources for neighbourhood teams are demand based and reductions in the neighbourhood teams would be possible due to the decreased demand in low-level issues that Surrey Police dealt with. The group was advised that Surrey Police had altered its handling of low-level or non-police matters and implemented an approach similar to other police forces.

2.5 Changes introduced shortly before PIYN meant that non-police business is no longer handled by

the police, but instead signposted to the right public service or identified as a civil matter. Similarly, police matters designated as low-level are not dealt with face to face as often. The Borough Inspector advised that approximately 30 per cent of the work undertaken by the police previously was judged low-level and would not be dealt with under the PIYN structure. He advised the group that the aim for PIYN was for an approximate 14 per cent reduction in incident deployments and a 17 per cent reduction in crime allocated for investigation.

2.6 In Guildford, implementation of PIYN reduced the Borough’s neighbourhood policing team from

18 police constables and 16 PCSOs to 2 police constables and 16 PCSOs. The group was advised that the principal role of the new Safer Neighbourhood Team is to address locally identified chronic and repeat issues.

4 HMIC, PEEL: Police effectiveness 2016: An inspection of Surrey Police, March 2017, p. 27.

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/peel-police-effectiveness-2016-surrey.pdf

2.7 The task group was advised that overall the changes and re-alignment of resources under PIYN

resulted in approximately the same number of police officers for Guildford Borough. The implications of a smaller, more focused Safer Neighbourhood Team tasked to tackle repeat neighbourhood problems are discussed below in section 4.

3. Process________________________________________

3.1 At the outset of its work the task group agreed the merit in obtaining evidence and viewpoints

from a range of sources, rather than restricting itself to the Council’s community safety or environmental enforcement services. The task group met formally to gather evidence on ten occasions. The notes of these meetings are attached as Appendix 1.

3.2 During the course of its considerations the group obtained oral evidence from officers, the Lead

Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety, and the Lead Councillor for Community, Health and Sport. The group spoke with Inspector Graham Barnett and David Munro (the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey). To gain a better understanding of the issues and mechanisms involved the group visited the Surrey Police contact centre at Mount Browne.

3.3 In addition, the task group met representatives of the Royal Surrey County Hospital and the

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust to hear about the perceived impact of the policing changes on the NHS locally.

3.4 The group gathered written material on the current position and arrangements in the Borough in

relation to anti-social behaviour and environmental enforcement powers. This information was considered within the context of what other local authority areas in the county do; for example, the Joint Enforcement Teams established at Spelthorne Borough Council and at Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.

3.5 The group considered relevant legislation and guidance. Other notable written information

obtained includes a draft of a forthcoming Council-wide enforcement policy, notes of the Council’s JET proposals working group, and Surrey Police’s post-implementation review of its PIYN.

4. Key issues and findings______________________________________

4.1 During its investigation of the effects and implications of the policing changes, the task group

identified a number of issues with potential to impact on community safety in the Borough. Before considering the group’s proposals to address these various concerns it is sensible to distinguish the issues. As will be seen, many issues interrelate.

Demand reduction

4.2 A key principle of the PIYN model is the effective management of demand to allow police activity

to focus on issues of significant threat, harm, and risk. To some extent, the way Surrey Police handle low-level demand underpins the sustainability of the PIYN model. Surrey Police aim to achieve savings and increase efficiencies in working through more effective triage and referral methods and more consistent handling and allocation of crimes for investigation.

4.3 Surrey Police’s new approach to handling public contacts includes no longer responding to non-

police matters, referring and handling non-urgent issues in a different way: for example, signposting demand to the correct public agency (such as a local authority) or resolving issues over the phone if judged appropriate. The Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee was advised (prior to the formal launch of PIYN) that approximately 30 per cent of the work undertaken by the police prior to PIYN was judged low level and would not be dealt with under

the new structure.5 Subsequent updates to the task group confirmed this reduction target of 30 per cent.

4.4 In the initial period of PIYN change, some members of the public contacting the police were

referred erroneously to the Council or other public agencies. For example, the group was advised of issues around the referral of dangerous dog-related issues to the Council: whereas stray or nuisance dogs are a Council matter, the police usually deal with potential dangerous dog issues.6 Similarly, the police’s Policing Matters campaign to push back non-police matters to the correct agencies was described to the group as unhelpful to the Council due to some of its over simplistic or incorrect messages (for instance, ‘To report fly tipping contact your Council’7). Of more concern to the group were issues relating to the NHS locally.

4.5 The group was informed by the (then) Borough Inspector that difficulties and issues for the police

were often generated or connected to the Royal Surrey County Hospital and Farnham Road Hospital sites. Expanding on this point, Inspector Barnett advised the group that mentally ill people missing from hospital was a significant problem in Guildford.8 In addition, the group became aware that an increase in police attendance at acute hospital sites in Surrey appeared to be a matter of ongoing concern to the police and the Police and Crime Commissioner, with the issue raised through the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board.9

4.6 Following up on this with the NHS locally, the group heard first-hand accounts of difficulties

obtaining police response and attendance at local NHS hospitals.10 Although the police and the NHS had clearly made efforts to maintain good working relationships and overcome difficulties, including the introduction of additional liaison meetings and a detailed joint working protocol,11 the task group remain concerned. For example, the task group was told of an apparent contrast between the police’s willingness to attend Royal Surrey County Hospital in the period before the introduction of the policing changes with a perceived aversion or even a refusal to attend since. The group was informed that at Farnham Road Hospital the staff had found police would not respond to their calls unless the patient had become threateningly aggressive. The group was advised that the police expected the hospital to have its own security (although Farnham Road Hospital did originally have security, the group was advised that this had been let go due to resource cuts). The group were informed that other hospitals in Surrey had difficulties in relation to police attendance.

4.7 Furthermore, in a witness session with an NHS security manager, reference was made to a

league table of the police’s responses for each NHS organisation. The group was advised that this approach by the police was felt to be unhelpful. A suggestion was put forward from an NHS representative for further education of the call handlers at the police call centre who triaged contacts and prioritised responses, particularly around mental health and anti-social behaviours.

4.8 The task group was advised by Council officers that while not practicable to identify precisely how

many public contacts to the Council had been generated by police referrals an approximation was possible. Such a figure was obtained from an analysis of calls received and comparison of demand before and since the police changes to contact handling. The group was informed that as a result of police no longer dealing with environment related problems and transferring demand approximately 100-150 extra calls had been made to the Council’s Customer Service Centre in the six-month period preceding the formal launch of PIYN.

5 See Appendix 4, Guildford Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee Minutes, ‘Surrey Police: Changes to

Policing’, Minute OS7, 15 March 2016. 6 See Appendix 1 for testimony given to the group by Council officers at its 12 July 2016, 26 July 2016, and 5

December 2016 evidence gathering meetings. 7 Local authorities are responsible for investigating and clearing up the smaller scale fly-tipping on public land.

Landowners are responsible for clearing fly-tipping on private land. 8 See Appendix 1, for notes of the group’s 20 June 2016 meeting.

9 For example, see minutes of Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board for 8 December 2016 and 9 March 2017.

10 See Appendix 1 for notes of evidence gathering sessions with NHS held on 5 December 2016 and 1 February

2017. 11

Surrey Police & Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust: Joint Working Protocol, June 2016.

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/s36047/Minutes%20Public%20Pack%2008122016%20Health%20and%20Wellbeing%20Board.pdf

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=328&MId=5190&Ver=4

4.9 All this presupposes that demand reduction for Surrey Police will involve the transferral of much

valid demand, be it to the Council or elsewhere. However, it should be questioned whether valid demand may have been lost due to the PIYN change as concerns from members of the public were not reported or investigated. Some communications given out by the police around what is a police matter and what is not and should be progressed with the local authority were incorrect. This may have left members of the public without support. In addition, the task group confirmed there were at times long delays in answering the police’s 101 non-emergency number. Both during an informal familiarisation visit to the police’s call centre and in other discussions, the group was assured that improvements to the police service for low-level, non-urgent calls had been achieved and lost calls had fallen.

Reduced public engagement

4.10 One effect of the PIYN changes has been reduced public engagement by the police. As indicated in 2.5 above, PIYN has seen Guildford’s neighbourhood policing team reduced by 16 Neighbourhood Specialist Officers. Their role under PIYN has been changed to prioritise chronic and repeat issues in localities. The task group received information indicating that as Surrey Police changed its way of working and focused on different priorities there was a decline in proactive and preventative policing, including actions to reduce the community’s fear of crime. Indeed, the members of the task group were familiar with such concerns from their own wards. The group noted that improving local proactivity was one of the main recommendations of the post-implementation PIYN review. In addition, the group is aware that undertaking the policing changes with police staff resources below establishment level caused additional challenges.

4.11 The role of PCSOs in Guildford has changed fundamentally. The group was advised by the

police that PCSOs were now a targeted resource. Moreover, they were intended to be focused on enforcement and resolving problems, rather than on community and finding out about problems. The group was advised that PCSOs now appear more ‘police-minded’ than community-oriented. Whereas previously PCSOs addressed issues of litter, graffiti, and fly-tipping, these are now treated as areas for Council action.

4.12 The intelligence gathering role of PCSOs is downgraded in the neighbourhood policing changes.

The approachability of PCSOs and their ability to seek and collate community information and intelligence in support of neighbourhood security appears less of a priority now than before the PIYN change. Indeed, the new emphasis on PCSO enforcement was underlined in testimony to the task group that made clear new enforcement powers being sought for PCSOs (such as an ability to issue traffic tickets) would serve to increase their credibility with some members of the community.

4.13 The potential lack of intelligence gathering on anti-social behaviour and other community safety

issues is discussed further below (in relation to Community Wardens, in section 5.6) but it is worthwhile highlighting the concern in the wider local context. Since the beginning of 2016, Guildford’s Joint Action Group12 has not had a police analyst to help quantify and assimilate issues and plan priorities and issues. The group was advised that the ‘observe and report’ aspects of the Council’s community wardens’ role ended in 2013.13

4.14 The task group concluded that there has been a marked decrease in local neighbourhood police

visibility. PCSOs no longer conduct high visibility foot patrols, attend community or parish council meetings, or hold police panel meetings. In response to raising these concerns about a lack of police presence, the group was advised by the Borough Inspector that increased use of marked police cars would improve PCSOs’ visibility in the Borough. When questioned on further possible actions, the police confirmed their opposition to PCSO involvement in public engagement events (such as drop in sessions or public meetings with Council officers and other partners, councillors,

12

One of the groups established to deliver the aims of the Safer Guildford Partnership by reviewing crime and disorder in the Borough and monitoring emerging and potential problems. 13

See Appendix 1 for notes of evidence gathering session on 20 July 2016.

and residents’ groups). Nonetheless, the police maintain the ward-aligned PCSOs will be in and around their wards and the face of the police locally.

4.15 While the role of the task group is not to scrutinise the police changes as such, the group

members are mindful of a responsibility to identify issues of concern. The group feels that the reduction in public engagement by the police, in combination with a relative lack of publicity for the neighbourhood policing team changes, risks a reduction in public confidence relating to community safety. In addition, there may be a risk that resources are drawn naturally to localities where there is largest demand for reactive response and investigation, leaving other areas with little visible coverage, causing new crime hot spots, and falling public confidence. The group was advised that it was too early to gauge whether public satisfaction with the police would fall because of the policing changes, but the latest HMIC evaluation of Surrey Police notes that a significant fall in victim satisfaction following the introduction of PIYN is a cause for concern.14

4.16 Surrey Police’s post-implementation survey of PIYN stakeholders found local authorities raised

concerns around a lack of a police presence and contact, and reactive policing. As a result, the police’s internal review of PIYN flagged up a risk to public confidence connected largely to neighbourhood policing issues.15

An enforcement capability gap?

4.17 The Borough Inspector and Council officers alluded to gaps in the anti-social behaviour measures

and environmental enforcement approach adopted by the Council. For instance, the Council’s lack of capability to enforce Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs).16

4.18 The task group was informed that in Guildford the police are necessarily leading on the sole

PSPO (in relation to Bedford House, Bedford Road car park, and the adjacent office area) rather than supporting the Council in leading it. The reason is that the Council does not have suitable enforcement officers.

4.19 The police, councils, and other agencies share responsibility for the powers to deal with anti-

social behaviour. The relevant statutory guidance indicates that responsibility for enforcing PSPOs is not confined to the local authority. Similarly, the Council may be the expected lead for making Community Protection Notices (CPNs), but police officers and PCSOs can issue such notices.

4.20 However, the Council’s responsibility for enforcing against statutory nuisance often trumps the

less specific anti-social behaviour measures available to partners under the Anti-Social Behaviour and Crime and Policing Act 2014 (discussed below in section 5). If the anti-social behaviour constitutes a statutory nuisance (under Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) then the Council has a duty to issue an Abatement Notice.17 Issuance of a Community Protection Notice to address a problem does not release the Council from this duty to act against behaviour that constitutes a statutory nuisance. As the guidance states on the subject, ‘It remains a principle of law that a specific power should be used in preference to a general one.’18 Adhering to this principle may have implications for the Council’s resourcing of its specialist environmental enforcement activity.

14

HMIC, PEEL: Police effectiveness 2016: An inspection of Surrey Police, p.22. 15

Surrey Police, Policing In Your Neighbourhood: post implementation review, November 2016, p.18 and Appendix K: PIYN Stakeholders Survey August 2016/17. 16

Only a Council can make a PSPO, which is designed to stop individuals or groups committing anti-social behaviour in a public space. Report to Guildford Council Executive, ‘Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014’, 20 January 2015. For further details of PSPOs and other anti-social behaviour powers see: Home Office, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Reform of anti-social behaviour powers Statutory guidance for frontline professionals, July 2014. 17

For an outline of what constitutes statutory nuisance see government guidance ‘Statutory nuisances: how councils deal with complaints.’ 18

Home Office, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Reform of anti-social behaviour powers Statutory guidance for frontline professionals, July 2014, p.41.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/anti-social-behaviour-crime-and-policing-bill-anti-social-behaviour


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/statutory-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/statutory-nuisances-how-councils-deal-with-complaints



4.21 The introduction of PIYN has perhaps exacerbated local issues around anti-social behaviour

roles and responsibilities and therefore further discussions are needed on the issue.

Communication 4.22 A persistent issue to emerge from the task group’s investigation of the PIYN changes was the

need for improved communication between partners. Whether this need for improvement is due to poor communication or stakeholders being inwardly focused is difficult to judge but it was a recurring feature. More than once during its review, the task group members suggested the value in stakeholders being brought together to resolve issues raised or revealed by the PIYN changes.

4.23 While not wishing to overstate the issue, public services are there to serve communities and are

likely to work best if there is good communication between partners to identify how collaborative working can best achieve this. Understandably, service pressures and the government’s austerity measures which have made a significant reduction in grant funding to the public sector have caused police resources to be diverted away from activities identified as being of lower risk and threat. In Guildford at least, the implications for partners of this change in police commitment and resources do not seem to have been worked through together completely. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, there does not seem to be a shared view about the likely impact of PIYN changes on community safety.

4.24 As public agencies face their respective budget difficulties each will decide how best to allocate

their resources; however, there is a need for a collaborative approach, particularly in the context of preventative work. Ideally each organisation will clearly communicate what the issues are so a shared view can be realised about how all partners can work together to meet these challenges.

4.25 Of course, there are mechanisms in place to identify harm and community safety issues within

the Borough. The Safer Guildford Partnership is a partnership of organisations who work together to create strategies and practical interventions to reduce crime and disorder. Underneath this statutory Community Safety Partnership are multi-agency problem solving groups such as the Joint Action Group (JAG) and Community Incident Action Group (CIAG).

5. Proposals and key recommendations________________________________

5.1 The group’s proposals for addressing the issues identified in section 4 are discussed below.

Community Safety Wardens 5.2 From an early stage in its work, the group was interested to consider whether restoring the role of

the Council’s Community Safety Wardens (CSWs) was an appropriate response to issues brought to notice by their review. Before putting forward the group’s proposals regarding Community Safety Wardens it is necessary to provide some background information.

5.3 Until 2013 the Council had a Community Safety Warden team that worked in the less advantaged

wards in the Borough. In addition to community support and achieving community improvements, the role of these wardens included deterring anti-social behaviour, reducing crime and the fear of crime, and building bridges between the community, Council, and police. In 2013 a decision was taken by the Executive to refocus this service towards community development. To reinforce the move away from crime and disorder the word safety was removed from the CSW job title. This decision was taken against a backdrop of ongoing and increasing investment in neighbourhood policing by Surrey Police. Moreover, the strength of Surrey Police’s neighbourhood policing ‘enabled this [CSW] shift in focus to happen and is something they [Surrey Police] support.’19

19

Report to Guildford Council Executive, ‘Community Safety Wardens Review,’ 5 September 2013.

5.4 The PIYN changes mean it is necessary to revisit the decision to refocus the CSW role. At the

time of the 2013 CSW change there were 21 police officers and 26 PSCOs in the Borough’s neighbourhood policing team — following the introduction of PIYN there are 2 police constables and 16 PCSOs. The task group was told that the police focus for neighbourhood policing is no longer on community and finding out about problems, rather it is on enforcement and resolving problems. Evidence presented to the group confirmed that the presence and visibility of the police, along with their public engagement, has reduced post-PIYN.20

5.5 The Council’s 2013 review of the CSWs, prior to their re-designation as Community Wardens

(CWs), found them to be ‘a very visible, accessible and successful bridge between residents and a range of statutory and voluntary third sector agencies serving communities.’ CSWs had an observe and report element to their role. They patrolled on foot, and are acknowledged to have been viewed as non-threatening and approachable in a manner different to police officers and PCSOs, and trusted in a way councillors are sometimes not. CSWs were more than a friendly face to comment and assist residents through issues.21

5.6 The Community Wardens remain well-placed in communities and neighbourhood networks to

gather intelligence. It is likely that the success in reducing anti-social behaviour relies heavily on information provided by members of the public. The police advised that from their viewpoint the CSW role had worked well, with much intelligence relayed. The group do not believe there is a contradiction or tension with the crime and disorder or environmental enforcement aspects of the previous CSW role and the current CW work in community development. Indeed, the task group agreed with officers and the Lead Councillor for Community, Health and Sport on how close the wardens’ current role appeared to the CSWs’ previous role.

5.7 The task group favours the introduction of measures to improve the Community Wardens’

visibility and help deter anti-social behaviour and reduce crime and the fear of crime. Under PIYN the police have reduced their community reassurance role. Therefore, the task group suggests it is appropriate and timely that the present visibility and presence of wardens in their communities should be improved and increased (particularly as wardens no longer attend residents’ meetings or parish council meetings).

5.8 Proposals for a wider CW role should not be interpreted as a judgment on the current project

work undertaken by the CWs. It is envisaged that a long-term approach to community development continues. Other aspects of the role may alter. For example, the group noted that the Director of Community Services indicated that undertaking the settling in visits and estate inspections with new housing tenants was a role more appropriate for the Council’s Area Housing Managers than the CWs. The group was informed that for a time following the change in the CSWs’ role (to CWs) the Council’s housing managers had walked the estates.

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and CSAS 5.9 Legislation obliges the Council to consider community safety in all its duties, activities, and

decision-making. In addition, the police and councils are required to work together to reduce crime and disorder.22 To tackle the issues and concerns associated or shown up by the policing changes the task group feel that the Council must embrace and exploit the powers available. An illustrative example is the provisions and powers within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.23

20

‘Community Safety Wardens Review,’ 5 September 2013. 21

See Appendix 1 for notes of evidence gathering session on 5 October 2016. 22

Notably, section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended). 23

See guidance: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Reform of anti-social behaviour powers Statutory guidance for frontline professionals, July 2014.

RECOMMENDATION 1: That the Executive revisit the decision to refocus the Community Safety Wardens, with a view to formally widening the Community Warden role to include community safety elements.



5.10 The Council is the lead authority on some of the powers within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime

and Policing Act 2014. The statutory guidance indicates the powers within the Act are intended to allow the police, councils, social landlords, and others to deal with anti-social behaviour problems quickly. The measures in the Act bridge the gap between the local authority’s statutory nuisance powers and the criminal powers used by the police. Besides introducing new powers, this Act rationalised 19 existing anti-social behaviour powers into 6 more flexible ones. The Executive delegated the Council’s functions and enforcement powers under this Act to senior officers in January 2015. The Council’s response to the implications of enforcing the new powers, including the establishment of suitable frontline staff, has not been expedited.

5.11 The task group questioned whether the service residents received when reporting anti-social

behaviour to the Council could vary, essentially depending on whether they lived in social housing or not. Social landlords have a range of powers to deal with tenants exhibiting anti-social behaviour and duties to publish anti-social behaviour policies and procedures. Accordingly, the Council has an Anti-Social Behaviour Manager in Neighbourhood and Housing Management Services to address incidents involving its tenants. While understanding that there are separate duties for registered providers of social housing, of which the Council is the largest in the Borough, there remains a principle of fair access to a service. Put simply, there is concern to ensure that a specialist anti-social behaviour service is accessible to all residents in the Borough.

5.12 The task group members suggest it would be worthwhile to undertake additional work to assess

the potential need for expanding the Council’s anti-social behaviour service. How the Council record and monitor anti-social behaviour and the strategic approach applied might feature in such a review.

5.13 Such a proposed review could investigate the need and benefits of the Council offering a tenure-

neutral anti-social behaviour service. That is to say, should such a service respond to reports of anti-social behaviour from social housing tenants, private tenants, and owner-occupiers. Alternatively, the proposed investigation could explore the advisability of providing a dedicated resource for homeowners and private tenants.

5.14 To help provide a responsive, effective, and flexible law enforcement team the group feel that the

fullest range of appropriate powers should be available. Specifically, the Council should carefully evaluate whether enforcement officers seek police Community Safety Accreditation Scheme powers.24 Such accreditation would allow the Council officers to apply specific powers granted to them by the Chief Constable based on local community safety requirements. The scheme is intended to create a framework for public (and private) bodies to work in partnership with the police, provide additional uniformed presence in communities, and save police time by dealing with low-level crime and disorder.

5.15 In the context of the recent policing changes, exploring the opportunity to apply for CSAS

accreditation with Surrey Police seems rational. Council staff within Joint Enforcement Teams in other local authorities in Surrey have completed CSAS accreditation and can issue a range of fixed penalty notices where appropriate. The list of CSAS powers that may be conferred on accredited persons is outlined in Appendix 3.

24

The Police Reform Act 2002 includes the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme to which chief constables can choose to accredit employed people already in roles which contribute to maintaining and improving community safety with limited but targeted powers. Home Office, Guidance on community safety accreditation scheme (CSAS) powers, 2012 (updated 2015).

RECOMMENDATION 2: That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee establish a task and finish group to further review the possible expansion of the Council’s anti-social behaviour service.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-safety-accreditation-scheme-powers


Joint Enforcement Teams: theory and practice 5.16 The theory of a JET has been interpreted and applied differently within Surrey; the concept is an

adaptive one. The idea was introduced to Surrey in 2013 by the (then) Police and Crime Commissioner, Kevin Hurley. Drawing inspiration from a scheme in the London Borough of Newham, the idea of a JET was to help the police and councils work together more efficiently. The stated aim was to integrate work and resources to take a zero-tolerance approach to address low level crime, anti-social behaviour, on street parking management, and environmental crime.

5.17 By bringing together the separate powers held by Surrey Police officers and council officers, it

was hoped the JET would be able to deal quickly with issues that otherwise might take considerable time. In Surrey, the JET concept was piloted in two local authorities: Reigate and Banstead Borough Council and later in Spelthorne Borough Council.25 The ambition was to test integrated law enforcement at a borough or district council level. The JETs were badged distinctively as Surrey Law Enforcement, with team members uniformed, and pump-priming funding provided by the Police and Crime Commissioner. As stated above, the JET staff have been granted CSAS powers by the Chief Constable of Surrey Police. Such CSAS powers would increase the range of issues that can be dealt with by the JET and, it seems reasonable to conclude, would strengthen their links to the police.

5.18 An evaluation of the JET pilots in Surrey found the localities had ‘developed different approaches,

variations on a theme, to delivering the project’.26 Perhaps it is unsurprising that solutions to different local priorities differ, since a model ideal for all would be unusual. Of course, how to evaluate the success of interventions in community safety is not clear-cut. The task group was advised that measuring the level of enforcement activity and number of notices issued was unhelpful and agrees that it is more worthwhile to measure the levels of satisfaction with the intervention and the public’s perception that the police and council are addressing anti-social behaviour and crime matters.

5.19 Prior to the commencement of the Overview and Scrutiny task group the Council established a

working group of officers and Lead Councillors to develop proposals for a Joint Enforcement Team. Doubtless this working group will have noted that some JET initiatives in the county appear largely to be re-alignments of existing council resources into a Council Enforcement Team with a wider group of partners being called on when needed. A JET arrangement seems suited to circumstances in Guildford following PIYN. The task group recommend a JET initiative has the fullest possible integration with the police to ensure continued effective partnership working between the Council and Surrey Police.

5.20 From the JET pilots elsewhere, the group concludes that the working group developing the

resource implications of setting up a JET must ensure that existing council staff are reallocated only if appropriate. There is no value in shoehorning individuals into active enforcement roles for which they are ill-suited by disposition and, despite training, likely to prove unsuccessful. A key lesson from establishment of the Spelthorne JET was to develop a team with people who wanted to do the job – not re-assign personnel to roles that they would not ordinarily seek.

25

Subsequently, both Elmbridge Borough Council and Waverley Borough Councils created JETs as part of their respective approaches to community safety. 26

Report to Surrey Police and Crime Panel, ‘Joint Enforcement Teams’, 29 September 2015.

RECOMMENDATON 3: That the Executive ensure the Council adopts and can use the full range of community safety powers and measures appropriate, including CSAS accreditation, in order to help provide the most responsive and effective enforcement possible.

5.21 Concerning the governance of a JET, the group concur with the view articulated to them by the

Director of Environment, that a JET tasked and co-ordinated by Guildford’s Joint Action Group is a good approach.

The Council’s ethos 5.22 Inevitably, the ethos of the Council will inform and influence its decision-making and operations,

including its response to the policing changes. The Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety commented to the group on resistance to JET proposals being couched in terms of querying its appropriateness for Guildford together with concerns for the Borough’s image. This raises the question of whether a JET might be seen as counter or unsuited to the ethos or fundamental values of the Council.

5.23 As seen above, JET-theory can vary in practice and the concept should not perhaps be

characterised as a single approach. The language of ‘zero tolerance’27 associated with JETs can be pejorative. The local police advised the group that the approach to community safety in the Borough should not be confined to enforcement only (because many of the low-level anti-social behaviour problems were caused by vulnerable people in need of help). The task group fully endorse this analysis.

5.24 Returning to the concerns of the Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety, the

evidence gathered by the task group supports the notion of a particular outlook within the Council regarding community safety and enforcement issues. In short, there is a strong predisposition towards education and engagement, rather than enforcement. For example, the group was advised that a JET would enforce against fly tipping but not against issues such as anti-social parking near schools (which would be dealt with by advice and education but not law enforcement). Nevertheless, unsafe or dangerous parking outside schools may warrant enforcement. Such decisions should be evidence-led (for instance, the group learnt that officers had identified 19 schools in the Borough with anti-social parking issues which suggests advice and education may only go so far). Early or informal interventions will not always work and the Council needs to have the full range of tools to deal with problems. As indicated above, Guildford’s Joint Action Group is a partnership mechanism well placed to oversee the JET process in the Borough.

5.25 The task group notes that a Council-wide enforcement policy should promote a consistent,

proportionate, and evidence-based response by addressing the disparate approaches to enforcement that currently exist.

6. Conclusion __________________________________

6.1 The group was tasked with establishing the most significant implications of the changes being

planned by Surrey Police, and identifying the consequences for the Council and other agencies and how to address them. As detailed above, it is possible to distinguish a number of issues with potential to impact on community safety in the Borough. The task group has organised its findings under four broad headings – demand reduction, reduced public engagement, an enforcement capability gap, and communication – but the issues and concerns interrelate. As do the proposals from the group.

27

Defined as non-acceptance of anti-social behaviour, typically by strict and uncompromising application of the

law.

RECOMMENDATON 4: That, with due attention to sustainable costings and budgetary restrictions, the Executive establish a Joint Enforcement Team that includes direct police participation via an agreed Service Level Agreement and is tasked and co-ordinated by Guildford’s Joint Action Group.

6.2 The proposals and recommendations put forward are designed to be evidence-based and to

ensure continued effective partnership working between the Council and Surrey Police. Revisiting the roles and responsibilities of the Community Wardens with a view to formally re-establishing the community safety elements and focus discontinued in 2013 is, the task group argues, sensible. Circumstances have changed in Guildford and the task group suggests the Community Wardens’ role should recognise this. However, the task group do not desire or anticipate that CWs will be used to address gaps in enforcement.

6.3 To address the enforcement gap and foster effective partnership working with the police, the task

group recommends the formation of a Joint Enforcement Team. Crucially, the task group calls for more than a Council enforcement team and asks for direct police participation, specified and agreed. The proposal put forward for the adoption of necessary enforcement powers and measures, including those linked to the CSAS, replicates the approach of JETs elsewhere in Surrey. Besides the obvious value in having accredited officers trained able to use full range of powers to ensure a rapid and effective response, links to the police will strengthen. The proposal to investigate, and perhaps recommend an expansion of the Council’s specialist anti-social behaviour service, can perhaps be seen as overdue.

6.4 While the purpose of the review and its recommendations was not to evaluate PIYN as such, the

task group was aware of its responsibility to bring to light issues of concern. The group heard accounts of how the policing changes are perceived to have affected the NHS locally, in particular in relation to police attendance. The task group was advised that other hospitals in Surrey outside Guildford experienced difficulties in relation to police attendance. The task group was made aware of alternative considerations, including the local police’s view that difficulties and issues for the police were often generated or connected to hospital sites.

6.5 As a final point, it is perhaps worth reiterating the task group’s assessment that not all of the

concerns associated with the policing changes are attributable to the changes. A number of these issues existed before and have either been exacerbated or simply become more conspicuous because of PIYN. The task group feel it is instructive that a persistent feature to emerge from their investigation was the need for improved communication between partners.

Appendices

1 – Task Group Meeting Notes (May 2016 - February 2017)

2 – Scoping Document, March 2016

3 – Community Safety Accreditation Scheme powers

4 – Overview and Scrutiny Committee, ‘Surrey Police: Changes to Policing’, Minute OS7,

15 March 2016

Appendix 1

Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey Overview and Scrutiny Task and Finish Group

Notes of the first meeting, Committee Room 2 on 24 May 2016

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse, Marsha Moseley, Jo Randall, Caroline Reeves, and Pauline Searle. Also present: James Dearling (Scrutiny Officer).

1. Apologies for absence No apologies were received.

2. Election of Chairman Councillor Kearse was elected chairman of the task group. 3. Terms of Reference

The group was invited to consider a Scoping Document detailing the remit for its work as agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 15 March 2016. The group noted the terms of reference.

4. Evidence gathering

Members discussed the need to gather information from a wide range of stakeholders involved and affected by the changes : including the police handling referrals under the new system, neighbourhood police officers, community wardens, and residents’ associations. The group agreed the need to consider information on the areas that previously might have been dealt with by the police, but since April are being referred elsewhere, along with details of the relevant potential powers. Such written information (e.g., as used in the triage / referral mechanism to handle enquires or in the training of call centre staff would be requested from the police. Council officers would be asked to provide details of the mainly anti-social behaviour and environment enforcement powers available. The group agreed it would like a full picture of the effect of the changes, not one limited to Council services. Group members discussed the value in a visit to the police call centre or of speaking to one of the police officers assisting with the referral of enquiries at the call centre. The group was advised that a request for such a familiarisation visit had been declined at this time, but it was agreed to ask again.

5. Co-option

The group considered the issue of co-option, particularly the merits of co-opting a representative of a stakeholder group. The merit of co-opting a Youth Ambassador or a youth outreach worker was suggested. The Scrutiny Officer indicated he would look into the matter further.

6. Date and Time of Future Meetings

Members identified periods when they would be unavailable and usually available for meetings. The Scrutiny Officer indicated he would progress arrangements with the Chairman. Members confirmed the value in receiving written information by email outside of formal meetings.

The group was reminded that an update by Inspector Barnett on Policing In Your Neighbourhood was scheduled for Monday 20 June at 1.00pm in Room 204, Old Millmead.


Notes of the second meeting, Room 204 on 20 June 2016

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse (Chairman), Marsha Moseley, Jo Randall, Caroline Reeves, and Pauline Searle. Also present: Inspector Graham Barnett (Surrey Police) and James Dearling (Scrutiny Officer).


2. Update on Policing in Your Neighbourhood (PIYN)

Inspector Barnett updated the group on the PIYN model in Guildford. The group was advised that, although officers were still learning, the PIYN model was working well. The group was informed that police staffing was an issue in Surrey and more generally through the south and south-east of the country. The group was advised of the difficulties of police recruitment (principally high accommodation costs with a starting salary of £19k) and training issues. Inspector Barnett indicated that some areas in Surrey were experiencing staff shortages, but Guildford was better resourced than many other localities. The group was informed that in Guildford crime had continued to fall — with the notable exception of violent crime. In response to questions, a number of points and clarifications were made:

The group was advised that it was too early to gauge whether public satisfaction with the police would fall as a result a decline in attending incidents as part of the PIYN changes.

PIYN arrangements were not peculiar to Surrey — most police forces followed such an omnicompetent model. Yet, Hampshire had changed from a PIYN model to the model previously used in Surrey.

Staff turnover at Surrey Police call centre was high. Experienced officers and sergeants assisted (often young and inexperienced) call centre staff. A THRIVE (Threat, Harm, Risk, Investigation, Vulnerability) matrix was used to help triage callers.

In response to a question about possible improvement of the police call centre, Inspector Barnett advised the group that issues experienced after the change to PIYN were now rare.

In response to a request to witness the referral system first-hand, Inspector Barnett indicated he saw no purpose in the group undertaking a familiarisation visit to the police call centre.

In the initial period of the PIYN change, some civil matters had been mistakenly referred to the Council by the police call centre. The group was advised that some matters dealt with previously by the police had been referred to social services (e.g., by MASH — multi- agency safeguarding hub). Similarly, matters such as assaults in hospitals might be dealt with by hospitals rather than police attending.

New powers for PCSOs (for example, an ability to issue traffic tickets) were expected to be ratified shortly, after which a period of related training would be required. Perhaps by the end of August new PCSO powers would be in place, although the Council would remain the

responsible licensing authority. The police envisaged that the credibility of PCSOs with some members of the community would increase with the extra powers. Members suggested a paradox between Surrey Police advising Councils and other organisations of a pulling back from certain low-level demands which were judged outside a police role, while expanding police powers and roles into areas that were the responsibility of the Council.

In Guildford, burglaries at dwellings were down, although the group was advised that incidence of burglaries from non-dwellings was a better indicator for judging any crime rate trend.

The new Police and Crime Commissioner appeared to have a different focus from his predecessor, including more emphasis on rural crime, although this view might change over time.

Although the Council was able to issue PSPOs (public space protection orders), the Council’s current capacity for enforcement appeared limited.

A Joint Enforcement Team (JET) approach to enforcement was an option for the Council, but it might be seen as expensive compared with alternatives such as anti-social behaviour managers and additional powers to staff.

The public perception of the Council’s Community Wardens might be altered if they undertook an enforcement role. Members questioned whether the relationship between the public and PCSOs would be similarly affected by increased enforcement. In reply, Inspector Barnett indicated that instances of one-off enforcement should not alter the relationship.

The group was informed that difficulties and issues for the police were often generated or connected to the Royal Surrey County Hospital and Farnham Road Hospital sites. Expanding on this point, Inspector Barnett advised that mentally ill people missing from hospital was a significant problem in Guildford.

Group members questioned whether the publicity for the PIYN change had been adequate. Inspector Barnett undertook to provide information for councillors, parish councils, and residents’ associations. He indicated the council’s Community Safety Officer would be able to circulate such information.

The Chairman thanked Inspector Barnett for his update and responses to the group’s queries.

3. Evidence gathering Members discussed the need to gather information from the Council’s customer centre (on the impact of the extra referrals from the police) and the Lead Councillor (particularly in connection with the JET proposals). In addition, the group identified the Council’s enforcement plans for further investigation, particularly its funding and the role of the Council’s community wardens. The value in speaking to the Council’s Community Safety Officer at a future meeting was agreed.

4. Date of Next Meeting

Members agreed the group’s next meeting would be on Monday 11 July at 4.00pm, with Thursday 14 July as a backup alternative.


Notes of the third meeting, Whitmoor Room on 12 July 2016

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse (Chairman), Marsha Moseley, Jo Randall, Caroline Reeves, and Pauline Searle. Also present: James Dearling (Scrutiny Officer), Samantha Hutchison (Community Development Manager), and Philip O’Dwyer (Director of Community Services).


2. Notes of Previous Meeting The notes of the meeting held on 20 June 2016 were approved. 3. Community wardens

The Director of Community Services advised the task group of the history of the Council’s community wardens. The group was advised that until 2013 the wardens had operated as community safety wardens with an element of crime and disorder to their role; yet, they had never been enforcement officers. The Community Safety wardens predated the creation of PCSOs. The group was advised that there was value in a clear demarcation between enforcement and community roles because if wardens undertook enforcement activities it would be detrimental to their relationships with local residents. As a result of a 2013 review of the community safety wardens,28 the Executive changed the wardens’ roles to focus on developing communities, e.g., to address the underlying reasons for anti-social behaviour rather than its signs. The change was intended to build community resilience and enable a degree of “self-policing” by the community.

A number of questions, points, suggestions and clarifications were discussed:

The Community Development Manager was appointed to post a year after the Executive decision to change the role of the community wardens.

Since the 2013 change in role, the wardens had been re-organised into two teams. The group was advised that some voluntary agencies in Guildford had adopted the same model. The wardens’ work was project-based and did not involve patrolling.

Project Aspire was the latest initiative to make communities stronger and more resilient

As part of their community development work, the community wardens aimed to build up the capacity of voluntary agencies.

In response to a question, the group was advised that the number of wardens remained unchanged at seven [the number of neighbourhood police officers had declined under PIYN

28

Details of the 2013 review and decision are available here, see item 8 and also minute EX36: http://www.guildford.gov.uk/article/10778/Executive---5-September-2013?cur=2

http://www.guildford.gov.uk/article/10778/Executive---5-September-2013?cur=2

from 16 to 2, with the number of PCSOs remaining at 16] although neighbourhood policing and wardens were different roles.

The wardens no longer had an observe and report role, focused less on direct crime and disorder issues or environmental issues such as litter and abandoned cars. The group was informed that the intention was to break such a dependency culture, and build capacities to enable communities to report their own crimes.

Members of the group suggested the 2013 change in the wardens’ role meant local residents no longer had a friendly face to comment and assist them through issues. Members of the group questioned whether in localities such as Ash liaison existed between local residents, parish councils, the wardens, and the police.

With reference to an over-reliance on email communication, members questioned whether the wardens appeared divorced or detached from their local communities. Members suggested the visibility and presence of the wardens in communities was insufficient – particularly as wardens no longer attended residents’ meetings or parish council meetings. In reply, the group was advised of events such coffee and cake mornings organised by the community warden teams. The Director of Community Services indicated that the operational methods used by the wardens would achieve contact with more people than the previous model of street patrols. However, the Director of Community Services and the Community Development Manager acknowledged that if communication had broken down it would be fixed.

The group questioned the role of the wardens in Project Aspire, the funding and sustainability of the project, and the future role of the wardens after the end of the project. The group was advised that in addition to Project Aspire there were a number of funding streams for community groups.

The group questioned the role of the councillors following the change in wardens and then the recent PIYN change (including the end of Police Panel meetings). Group members suggested councillors now felt disengaged compared to the inclusive approach of previous model of working. The Director of Community Services indicated that if the relationship with councillors as community leaders was broken then it needed to be addressed.

In view of the continuity of personnel through the community warden role change, members questioned what instructions had been given to the wardens about their new role.

With reference to warden surgeries or steering groups, the group was advised that methods were constantly evolving and the steering groups had previously been poorly attended but could be revisited.

The possibility of community wardens filling the gap created by the withdrawal of the police option was discussed. The Director of Community Services indicated that enforcement officers were the issue, rather than community wardens.

Members suggested the public found community wardens more approachable than PCSOs and councillors.

In response to the lack of community wardens based in the town centre, the Director of Community Services indicated that resources were targeted to have an effect rather than achieve a feel good factor.

The Director of Community Services indicated that he is very happy for links between new councillors and community wardens to be established, and there should be engagement with community representatives and parish councils. The Director of Community Services suggested the PIYN changes and the role change of community wardens highlighted a potential gap in enforcement.

Members suggested the value in publicising the contact details and role of the wardens, particularly given the limited mechanisms for contacting the police and their PIYN-limited role.

Members of the group questioned the appropriateness of the Council promoting health and, in turn, the validity of the health aspects of the community wardens’ role. In response, the group was advised of the benefits to residents of progressing health and wellbeing and the wider community leadership role of the Council.

In response to questions, the Director of Community Services indicated that it may be more appropriate that the Council’s Area Housing Managers (rather than community wardens) undertake settling-in visits and / or ‘estate inspections’ with new Council Housing tenants.

The Chairman thanked the Director of Community Services and the Community Development Manager for attending.

4. Impact of Customer Service Centre Members considered information suggesting how the PIYN changes may have impacted on calls to the Council’s customer service centre. The group was advised that it was not possible to identify calls generated by police referrals and it was estimated that approximately 100-150 extra calls may have been made as a result of the police no longer dealing with enforcement related problems. The group was advised that the Customer Services Manager had been asked to provide historic information on enforcement calls to the Council to enable an analysis of trends (and the possible impact of the PIYN change).

5. Date of Next Meeting

The group agreed to speak to the Council’s Community Safety Officer at its next meeting. The group agreed to meet two community wardens, one from each team. Members agreed the group’s next meeting would be on the afternoon of Wednesday 20 July, in a timeslot to be arranged between 12 noon and 4.00pm.


Notes of the fourth meeting, Room 204 on 20 July 2016

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse (Chairman), Jo Randall, Caroline Reeves, and Pauline Searle. Also present: Marie Clarke (Community Safety Officer) and James Dearling (Scrutiny Officer).

1. Apologies for absence An apology was received from Councillor Marsha Moseley.

2. Notes of Previous Meeting The notes of the meeting held on 12 July 2016 were approved. 3. Marie Clarke, Community Safety Officer

Marie introduced herself to the meeting, outlining her background (26 years at the Council, 15 years in community safety – with 10 years as the Community Safety Warden Manager – including experience of working with 14 Borough Inspectors). Marie’s involvement in community safety predated PCSOs and the neighbourhood policing that preceded the current PIYN. She indicated that she chaired Guildford’s JAG (Joint Action Group) and supported the local CIAG (Community Incident Action Group) and the Safer Guildford Partnership. A number of questions, points, suggestions and clarifications were discussed:

In the past, staff resources for community safety in Guildford were much greater. In a similar vein, current funding for the Safer Guildford Partnership was approximately £15k from the Council and approximately £3k from Surrey County Council. There were no extra funds to help meet the expectations PIYN had created.

PIYN and the new ASB powers (from the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) had generated additional workload and responsibilities for the Council. The Act added responsibilities for low level nuisance to the Council (in addition to existing responsibility for statutory nuisance issues). The Executive had delegated the Act’s relevant powers to the Council Directors in January 2015.

The new Criminal Behaviour Orders were the equivalent of ASBOs. Community Protection Notices (CPNs) were mainly concerned with environmental matters, although not replacing the powers and procedures operated by Environmental Health. The police’s use of CPNs could be viewed as more confident / straightforward than the Council’s (e.g., the police had tried to use them in connection with dogs), whereas the Council used its longer-established powers relating to statutory nuisance (and relied on the professionalism of its investigating officers).

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act obliged the council to take community safety into consideration in all its decision-making.

There had been little or no consultation by the police over the communications that accompanied the launch of PIYN. Some of the key messages of the Policing Matters campaign were unhelpful and over-simplistic. For example, ‘To report fly-tipping, contact your Council’ [fly-tipping on private land is not a Council matter but the responsibility of the landowner] or ‘To report noisy neighbours, contact your Council’]. Similarly, the police’s handling of some calls suggested an imprecise or casual approach, with some callers

incorrectly referred to the Council’s Customer Service Centre (for example, referrals of dog-related issues to the Council, whereas potential dangerous dog issues remained a police matter).

Staff at the police call centre are relatively low paid and there is a high turnover. They have been supported by experienced police officers to enable better decisions about the handling (including the referral) of callers. The Community Safety Officer has offered to visit the call centre or help train staff. Members suggested providing the police call centre with a contact sheet for both Council and County Council related issues. Locally, since PIYN the Neighbourhood Police had been giving out the Community Safety Officer’s phone number to members of the public.

The Council have an ASB Officer (in Neighbourhood and Housing Management Services) who worked with Council tenants only. Other districts in Surrey have Anti-Social Behaviour Managers for all residents, rather than just Council tenants. These dedicated officers elsewhere operate in the same way as the Council’s ASB Officer.

The Council had withdrawn Community Safety Wardens in 2013 and the police had now withdrawn from low-level civil matters. Before PIYN the police had held a pushback campaign.

The Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety apparently favoured a zero tolerance approach to enforcement, such as a Joint Enforcement Team or JET (as championed by the previous PCC). The importance was suggested of establishing the Council’s gaps in enforcement prior to setting an approach and method of delivery, i.e., identify the problems or issues before advancing the solution.

Partly to capture a snapshot of anti-social behaviour, an ASB audit was running during the current ASB Week. The group could be provided with details of the returns.

Members raised concern at the proposed switching-off of street-lighting by Surrey County Council, particularly in areas bordering the town centre and on Monday night (student night).

The PIYN model was designed to increase the concentration on vulnerable people, but the new PCC may have a different focus. The group was advised that this could be investigated.

The group was advised that the difficulties and issues for the police generated or connected to the Farnham Road Hospital site [as reported to the group on 20 June] appeared perhaps not to be well-known by the Hospital. Members suggested there was a lack of communication between partners or that stakeholders might be inwardly focused.

The Community Safety Officer indicated that she was not aware of any planned income generation (such as sustained lobbying) for future community safety.

As Chair of the JAG, the Community Safety Officer was able to task the Town Rangers (with the support of their manager), but was wary of overusing them as a resource.

There appeared to be an absence of ASB resource in Guildford. When it had Community Safety Wardens, Guildford’s community safety team had been the biggest of the 11 district and borough councils in Surrey. Now it is one of the smallest. Guildford had more community triggers than Greater Manchester. [The Community Trigger, also known as an Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review, is a way for members of the public to require agencies to carry out a review of their response to the anti-social behaviour they reported where they feel they did not get a satisfactory response. Agencies including the Council, police, and registered providers of social housing, have a duty to undertake an Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review when someone requests one and the case meets a locally defined threshold.]

The Community Safety Warden team were well known in their areas and served as a direct link between the public and services. The Wardens were more approachable than the police. Also, the police had a much higher turnover than the Wardens.

Health and wellbeing concerns appeared more of a priority for the Council than community safety. It was unclear whether the public was aware of the health and wellbeing primacy.

Currently members of the public with community safety concerns are directed to the Community Safety Officer. However, the Community Safety Officer is unable to call on the Community Wardens or the PCSOs.

The creation of a JET would provide a resource for the Community Safety Officer to task with addressing community safety issues. It would constitute a change (or mixed) approach for the Council’s community safety and environmental enforcement. Furthermore, there might be a tension if the Council deployed the JET in a locality where it was pursuing Project Aspire. The group was advised that the localities likely to be patrolled by a JET could be the same areas targeted for the attention of Project Aspire.

Other JETs in Surrey seemed to be Council enforcement officers, rather than Joint teams. They are badged as ‘Surrey law Enforcement.’

Following the change in role for the Community Safety Wardens and the police’s withdrawal from low-level demands, there was a possible gap in community safety.

There was a difficulty in demonstrating, and measuring, what Community Safety Wardens had prevented.

The Director of Environment had asked the Community Safety Officer, the Cleansing Manager, and the Environmental Health Manager to design and cost a JET. The PCC’s Office had contributed £100k to the establishment of each JET elsewhere in Surrey [JETs had been established in Spelthorne, Reigate and Banstead, and Elmbridge].

Members questioned the appropriateness of a zero tolerance approach and whether a JET would be counter to the ethos of the Council. The revised Corporate Plan did not appear to be aligned to the creation and deployment of a JET.

Since the beginning of the calendar year, Guildford JAG no longer had a police analyst to help quantify and assimilate issues and plan priorities and issues. The flow of information was not helped by the difficulty members of the public had in reporting issues to the police – particularly the 101 phone number and the awkwardness of reporting issues using the police’s online form.

The group was advised that Hampshire Constabulary’s had changed recently from a PIYN model to one similar to that discarded by Surrey Police. Members suggested establishing the reasons for Hampshire Constabulary’s change.

The nature and extent of the police’s withdrawal from dealing with low level demand could be seen as leaving others to handle the fallout.

The task group thanked the Community Safety Officer for attending.

4. Evidence Gathering and Next Steps Members agreed the group’s next meeting would be at 4.00pm on Tuesday 26 July, to talk to two Community Wardens (one from each team) and, if possible, the Customer Service Manager.

The group was advised that the Customer Services Manager had undertaken to provide historic information on enforcement calls to the Council to enable an analysis of trends (and the possible impact of the PIYN change). Members considered information provided by the Cleansing Manager. Members discussed the extent to which the pushback of the police may not have been grasped by officers and the inward focus of stakeholders.


Notes of the fifth meeting, Room 108 on 26 July 2016

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse (Chairman), Marsha Moseley, Caroline Reeves, and Pauline Searle. Also present: Andy Coumbe (Community Warden ̶ North Guildford Team), James Dearling (Scrutiny Officer), Emma Felgate (Customer Services Manager), and Jo Packman (Community Warden ̶ Ash and Tongham Team).

1. Apologies for absence An apology was received from Councillor Jo Randall.

2. Community Wardens

Andy Coumbe and Jo Packman introduced themselves to the meeting. Andy outlined his background (12 years at the Council, and before that a PCSO) and indicated he was a member of the North Guildford community warden team, a role which included some work within the Guildford town centre. Jo informed the group that she had been 28 years at the Council, including 11 as member of the warden team. She was based in Ash and Tongham Parishes. The group was advised that the focus of the wardens’ work was community development and no longer included street patrolling. The group was advised that the incidence of graffiti, abandoned cars, and litter the Community Safety Wardens had been dealing with had been drying up prior to the change in the warden role. Comparing the current community warden role with the previous community safety warden role, Jo indicated that she now supported health and wellbeing projects with well-defined measurables. The group was advised that the change in role had been easier for some members of the team than others, but the wardens had now settled into the role and embraced it. A number of questions, points, suggestions and clarifications were discussed:

In response to concerns with the wardens’ attendance at councillor surgeries and communication with ward councillors, the group was informed of a monthly newsletter, that listed current workloads . In reply to suggestions that councillors may feel disengaged from the warden team and that the regular warden patrolling of areas was missed, the group was advised of the monthly report sent to councillors. Group members suggested that the report was retrospective and communication with councillors could be improved.

The group was advised of coffee and cake sessions held to gather views of residents, and that local councillors and local police could be invited to attend in future. The wardens also used facebook, twitter, noticeboards, emails, and word of mouth to engage with residents. The wardens indicated that it might be possible to re-introduce resident group meetings.

The group was advised that the wardens’ North Guildford newsletter had become lengthy and would be replaced with a link. The North Guildford newsletter was getting more full each month, so the wardens proposed to send a link to it on the Council’s website, rather than email out a large file.

The group questioned whether the project reached beyond the established community groups and connected with the wider community. In reply, the group was advised of work undertaken by wardens, including work with schools and efforts to identify socially isolated residents. The wardens indicated that they worked with individuals to support them with problems they were having. In addition, the group was reminded that the Council had given the Project Aspire initiative to the wardens.

The wardens used to work with the PCSOs, including joint patrols, but they had no enforcement powers – the wardens were not an enforcement service. The group questioned whether the wardens favoured a continuation of their health and wellbeing role or a return to their previous role. In response, the group was informed that the wardens enjoyed the challenge. For example, the wardens each had a specialism for which they promoted awareness [Jo Packman’s was mental health]. The benefit of a bigger community warden team was also suggested, to avoid spreading the warden resource too thin (the wardens serve nine of the Borough’s twenty-two wards). This was proposed for the long term, to enable a larger community warden team to cover the entire Borough.

The group was informed that for a while following the change in the wardens’ role the Council’s housing managers had walked the estates.

It was suggested that the former Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey had not been perceived as a supporter of PCSOs and there had been a resultant high turnover. The role of PCSOs was felt to have changed; they had been community-oriented but now they were more ‘police-minded.’ Previously, the PCSOs had dealt with issues of litter, graffiti, and fly-tipping.

The group was advised that communication and relationships between the wardens and the local police had almost ceased in some areas . For example, in Stoughton the warden and local police officer had met once in six months.

The meeting discussed the response of councillors to a proposed ‘Let’s Get Moving’ event. The group suggested a personal invitation would be more effective than an email.

The warden team compiled a quarterly report of achievements and reflections on what might have been done better. These were submitted to the warden team supervisor.

With reference to community development, the group was advised that wardens would signpost members of the public to appropriate services and organisations but provide more assistance to individual residents if required.

The group was advised that the second stream of funding for Project Aspire would be wider than the current one (which focused on Westborough, Stoke, and Ash).

In conclusion, the Chairman observed that there was a lack of communication between stakeholders, and suggested the wardens’ current role appeared closer to their former one than the group had previously appreciated.

3. Customer Service Centre

The Customer Service Manager, Emma Felgate, introduced herself to the group and outlined her background and role. She currently managed eight members of staff at the Customer Service Centre (CSC) plus the Council’s Complaints Officer. The Customer Service Manager indicated that information from complaints was used to identify common traits or patterns. In response to questions, the Customer Service Manager confirmed that further improvement could be achieved in communication between the CSC and the Council’s services. The group questioned whether the Customer Service Centre has a forward plan of all major letters, information, bills, reminders, etc. being sent to residents throughout the year, so the CSC could prepare adequately.

When questioned about the impact of the policing changes, the Customer Service Manager confirmed calls to the CSC had increased. She advised that work had started on a breakdown of the calls, including a comparison of demand before and since the policing changes, but indicated it was an extremely time consuming task. The group confirmed it would like to see the results of the breakdown. The group considered a graph showing monthly calls to the CSC, with enforcement calls differentiated. The group was advised that the information had been prepared for the Joint Enforcement Team project meetings and referred to enforcement-type demand rather than visits by officers. Enforcement calls included dog fouling, fly tipping, abandoned cars, noise nuisance, and bonfires. In response to questions, the Customer Service Manager confirmed that the Antisocial Behaviour Officer in Neighbourhood and Housing Management Services dealt with anti-social behaviour in Council housing. All other anti-social behaviour issues were forwarded to the Team Leader of Environmental Control or the Neighbourhood and Community Safety Officer. Members questioned staff retention and turnover at the CSC. The Customer Service Manager confirmed that six of the current eight CSC staff were new to the Council (and still on probation). The call centre had physical capacity for three more staff, i.e., space for 11 CSC staff at any one time.

4. Evidence Gathering and Next Steps The group agreed the importance of finding out the plans and views of the new Police and Crime Commissioner, particularly for Joint Enforcement Teams and the Policing in Your Neighbourhood model. With reference to Antisocial Behaviour Officer in Neighbourhood and Housing Management Services, the group noted that the service residents might receive when reporting anti-social behaviour to the Council could vary, depending on whether they lived in a Council house or not. Members discussed the relevance of Project Aspire to the role of the community wardens and the value in both a settled role and funding for the wardens irrespective of project changes. The group suggested the Council supporting Project Aspire and Joint Enforcement Teams in the same communities, perhaps with the same staff, appeared ill advised. The group agreed the need to speak (next) to the Lead Councillor for Community, Health, and Sport about Project Aspire and subsequently to the Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety about Joint Enforcement Teams.


Notes of the sixth meeting, Chinthurst Room on 5 October 2016

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse (Chairman), Caroline Reeves, Jo Randall, and Pauline Searle. Also present: James Dearling (Scrutiny Officer), Councillor Iseult Roche, Lead Councillor for Community, Health, and Sport, Samantha Hutchison (Community Development Manager), and Philip O’Dwyer (Director of Community Services).

1. Apologies for absence

An apology was received from Councillor Marsha Moseley.

2. Notes of last meeting The notes of the meeting held on 26 July were approved. 3. Lead Councillor for Community, Health, and Sport

Councillor Iseult Roche, Lead Councillor for Community, Health, and Sport, advised the group about Project Aspire. She indicated that the project was not a one-off initiative, but a cultural approach with outcomes not necessarily achieved in the initial twelve-month period. The project aimed to develop communities and build community resilience; it was an attempt to tackle the root cause of crime, rather than react to it. The Lead Councillor indicated that the community wardens were a small part of Project Aspire. The community wardens had a community development role, but their work was not radically different from that undertaken by the previous community safety wardens. Gaps to street policing caused by PiYN changes did not fall into the community development role. The group was advised that the 2013 community safety warden role change had initially caused some unease, but feedback from wardens and residents suggested no concerns remained. The Lead Councillor indicated there had been changes introduced to improve the viability of the community warden role. She suggested maximising the community wardens’ visibility and enhancing their communication with residents, rather than reverting to the previous community safety warden role. The group was advised that while the first round of Project Aspire had targeted North Guildford and Park Barn, other areas in the Borough needed support and the initiative would continue. A number of questions, points, suggestions, and clarifications were discussed:

The value of holding meetings in wards between community wardens, councillors, residents, other Council teams, and PCSOs / the police was suggested. However, the group was advised that community wardens were facilitators and would have difficulty in delivering solutions by themselves. The Director of Community Services suggested the majority of issues were streetscene related. Members suggested such drop-in sessions could be a recommendation of the review, but were not the solution.

The group was advised that to roll out Project Aspire to all areas was very ambitious and would probably not happen, but there could be improved engagement with existing groups.

The Community Development Manager would invite local ward councillors to the sessions arranged to help build community development.

There was a need to promote the Project more widely outside the areas directly affected.

Since the group’s meeting on 12 July, the community warden service and project Aspire had been publicised further.

Group members questioned the relationship of the current Project Aspire to the town centre wards and the lack of a community warden presence there. The possible expansion of the community wardens into town centre areas was suggested.

Community safety wardens had been seen as a non-threatening and approachable in a different way to police officers and PCSOs. Information could be passed on to community safety wardens with anonymity. The wardens were trusted in a way councillors were sometimes not.

Central to the issue of the diminished communication with the police was the police’s perception of their role, although there was a need for the police to engage with communities and residents.

4. Customer Service Centre The group considered information provided by the Customer Service Manager, breaking down the last

six months of calls overall and showing the breakdown of enforcement calls.

5. Evidence gathering and next steps The group confirmed its interest in meeting the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey in the near

future. [Arrangements were subsequently confirmed for the group members to attend a Joint Enforcement Team fact-finding meeting on 10 November 2016].


Notes of the seventh meeting, Room 204 on 12 October 2016

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse (Chairman), Caroline Reeves, Marsha Moseley, Jo Randall, and Pauline Searle. Also present: Inspector Graham Barnett (Surrey Police), James Dearling (Scrutiny Officer), and Councillor Graham Ellwood, Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety.


There were no apologies for absence.

2. Policing in Your Neighbourhood (PiYN) Update

Inspector Graham Barnett updated the meeting on the progress of Policing in Your Neighbourhood (PiYN). The group was advised that the number of reports the police were attending was approaching the 30 per cent reduction target, although the target had not been achieved. Inspector Barnett indicated that staffing levels were lower than they should be, but that this was not unexpected. Inspector Barnett explained that the impact of the PiYN had become clearer, with some traffic and low-level ASB issues raised. He indicated that the only gap in enforcement that he was aware of was the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in relation to Bedford House, Bedford Road car park, and the adjacent office area. He confirmed that the Council had not yet got the facility to enforce the PSPO. In reply to questions, the group was advised that the Council had limited enforcement capability; for example, the Council should be leading on the Bedford House PSPO and the police should be supporting not leading. In response to questions, Inspector Barnett indicated that Surrey Police had been almost the only police force recruiting officers in the previous five years, and now that other forces had opened up to transferees Surrey would lose officers to Hampshire and other forces. He confirmed that affordable housing was an issue in retaining staff. In reply to a question, Inspector Barnett indicated that the bulk of policing in the Borough was undertaken in urban areas, and that the current team of officers were young and in the process of familiarising themselves with the outlying areas of the Borough. He confirmed that the call centre was now prioritising need for each contact. Inspector Barnett stated that the assessment and call handling at the police call centre had improved during the past few months. With reference to the triaging of calls, he indicated that the police were still picking up jobs that they should not and vice versa. He confirmed that the 101 system was not operating well but had improved. Inspector Barnett advised the meeting that under the PiYN model the PCSOs were a targeted resource and did not have the same level of visibility as previously. The PCSOs were intended to be focused around problems rather than the community. However, the Inspector confirmed that PCSOs should still be in and around their wards and be the face of the police locally. The group was advised that the PCSOs currently used unmarked police vehicles and that this would change later in the year, with a consequent change in visibility.

With reference to possible drop-in sessions or meetings involving community wardens, other teams within the Council, councillors, residents, and PCSOs [as discussed in the group’s meeting on 5 October], the Inspector informed the group that he was against PCSO involvement. He confirmed his support for PCSOs being used to focus on problems and enforcement of the law, rather than finding out about problems. Members of the group suggested that the lower public profile of the community wardens, since their role change from community safety wardens, compounded issues arising from the lack of a visible police presence due to PiYN. In response to members suggesting there was a lack of intelligence gathering available in local communities (as a result of the role change of the community safety wardens), Inspector Barnett told the group that a JET would not resolve a lack of intelligence gathering and that PCSOs were enforcement oriented. In addition, he confirmed that community safety wardens had relayed much intelligence in the past and currently other officers [the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Officer and Community Development Manager] provided important information. Nonetheless, he indicated that potentially there had been a gap left by the change in focus of the Council’s community (safety) wardens. He suggested the previous community safety warden roles had worked well from a police viewpoint. He indicated he saw less of, and was less familiar with, the actions and effects of the current community wardens’ role.

3. Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety

Councillor Graham Ellwood, Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety, was invited to address the group. He remarked on the perceived negativity of many Council officers and Councillors towards the concept of JETs. Councillor Ellwood identified the lack of a Council Enforcement Policy as a major gap that was being addressed. With reference to Reigate & Banstead and Spelthorne Councils, Councillor Ellwood advised the group on the strengths of having a JET. He advised the group that it was unreasonable to expect current Council officers to enforce the PSPO at Bedford House and suggested such a role was suited to a JET. Similarly, anti-social parking outside schools and fly tipping were put forward as areas well matched to JET action. The Lead Councillor suggested the Safer Guildford Partnership model could be improved. Drawing a contrast with Guildford’s Joint Action Group (JAG), he referred to the extensive officer representation he had witnessed at Spelthorne Council. He praised the results achieved by the JETs in Reigate & Banstead and in Spelthorne and suggested objections to a JET in Guildford were prompted by sentiments concerned with the image of the Borough. The Lead Councillor suggested funding for a JET was available from the PCC for Surrey, David Munro, including possible revenue funding. The group was advised by the Lead Councillor that a meeting with the PCC on 10 November 2016 would progress funding details for a possible JET in Guildford. He suggested a figure of perhaps £100k was available from the PCC Office to establish a JET in Guildford [a figure of £50k was subsequently confirmed by the PCC]. The Lead Councillor indicated that the lack of a Council Enforcement Policy was a potential weakness for a JET, but a Policy was being drafted. He suggested the group approach the Head of Health and Community Care Services to obtain the draft Enforcement Policy. In reply to a question, the Lead Councillor suggested that ideally a JET would consist of five officers, although initially it could be trialled with two. He indicated that providing an out-of-hours service would require five officers. The Lead Councillor advised that the training and powers available to JET officers could be discussed at the upcoming meeting with the PCC.

In response to questions about the potential funding available for a JET, the Lead Councillor indicated that Council officers had forecast £300k over three years [the Lead Councillor subsequently confirmed that this included a possible reallocation of resources]. Members of the group questioned what help, apart from and after enforcement action, would be in place to progress issues and help vulnerable people. Inspector Barnett indicated that the Borough’s approach could not be confined to enforcement as many of the low-level anti-social behaviour problems were caused by vulnerable people in need of help. He advocated a partnership approach through the CIAG (Community Incident Action Group). The Lead Councillor recommended the group gather further information on the JETs at Reigate & Banstead and Spelthorne Councils to inform its investigation. The Chairman thanked Inspector Barnett and Councillor Ellwood for attending and helping the group’s investigation.

4. Evidence gathering and next steps The group confirmed its interest in attending a JET fact-finding meeting with the PCC on

10 November 2016.

The group was reminded that a familiarisation visit to the police call centre at Mount Browne was arranged for the evening of 22 November.

The group agreed the value in meetings being arranged with the Director of Environment and relevant

officers, and representatives of the NHS locally. The group also determined that there was a need to view the proposed Council Enforcement Policy and for further information on the JETs established in Surrey.


Notes of the eighth meeting, Newlands Room on 5 December 2016 at 1pm

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse (Chairman), Caroline Reeves, Jo Randall, and Pauline Searle. Also present: James Dearling (Scrutiny Officer) and Jason Wright, Emergency Planning Manager & Local Security Management Specialist, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.


There was an apology for absence from Councillor Marsha Moseley

2. Jason Wright, Emergency Planning Manager & Local Security Management Specialist, Royal

Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

The Chairman welcomed Jason Wright and indicated that the group would like to hear his experience of how the Policing in Your Neighbourhood changes may have affected the NHS locally. Mr Wright informed the group of his current and previous roles and his experience, which included over 20 years in Surrey Police. The group was advised of the security arrangements at Royal Surrey County Hospital (RSCH), including Security Industry Authority (SIA) accredited porters. The group was advised that security issues at the hospital ranged widely but commonly involved abuse of staff, missing patients, or individuals with learning difficulties. In response to questions, Mr Wright told the group of difficulties with police attendance at the RSCH site. He contrasted the police’s willingness to attend RSCH in the period before the introduction of PiYN with an aversion or even a refusal to attend since the introduction of policing changes. It was suggested that the police viewed mental health related incidents as difficult to deal with and did not want to be involved. The group was advised that the law governing the deprivation of a person’s liberty in a hospital is complex. Key issues related to mental capacity law were outlined to the group, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). [DoLS are a set of checks included in the 2005 Act that apply only for people in care homes and hospitals. There checks aim to ensure that any care that restricts a person’s liberty is both appropriate and in their best interests.] The group was advised of Section 136 of the Mental Health Act, which gives police the authority to take a person from a public place to a ‘Place of Safety’, either for their own protection or for the protection of others, to assess their immediate needs. The group was advised that within the Borough such a place of safety was at Farnham Road Hospital or the custody suite at Guildford police station. The group was advised that guidance stated that a police station should be used as a place of safety in exceptional circumstances only. The relevance of Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights was also alluded to. The group was advised that under PiYN the police’s commitment of resources to RSCH had changed. Now, as a result of the effort to target their responses to directed priorities, the police were felt to be (unjustifiably) declining or reticent to attend incidents at the hospital which were not designated police priorities. The meeting was informed that the police had an inconsistent approach to 999 calls from RSCH. At times, the decision-making at the police call centre as to whether police responded or not appeared to be inconsistent. The group was advised that the personnel at the police call centre filtered issues.

Reference was made to a league table produced by the police that outlined the generation of the incidents they responded to at NHS organisations. The group was advised that this was felt to be an attempt to shame and pressurise and was unhelpful. In response to questions about the risk assessment processing of contacts by the police, Mr Wright suggested that further education of call handers at the police call centre was necessary, particularly around mental health and anti-social behaviours. With reference to a communication from the police, Mr Wright advised the group that the police appeared reluctant to attend the hospital for a report of a missing person and wanted assurances the person was no longer on the premises. The group was informed that the PiYN model could work, but it was suggested gaps in the police response needed addressing. Mr Wright indicated he had confidence in the police, but they were sometimes reluctant to fulfil their responsibilities. The group was advised of the difficulties encountered over the respective enforcement responsibilities of the police and the RSCH and the current standoff over the issue. In reply to a question, Mr Wright confirmed that other hospitals in Surrey had difficulties in relation to police attendance. In response to a question, Mr Wright confirmed that there were bed shortages at Farnham Road Hospital. The group was told that RSCH was building a safe room to meet a mental health target, but there was a fear that the mental health facility would be used as a Section 136 suite. In response to a question over the dialogue with the police, the meeting was advised that the police wanted RSCH staff to train in mental health techniques; the police did not appreciate that acute trust legislation differed from mental health legislation. Mr Wright confirmed an increase in mental health problems in the previous six-month period. He indicated the need to ensure vulnerable people were put in the right pathway for appropriate help. The Chairman thanked Mr Wright for attending and sharing information with them. The group members noted that a lack of communication seemed to be a common thread to the PiYN changes. Members suggested the value in stakeholders being together in the same room at the same time to resolve issues thrown up or revealed by the PiYN changes.


Notes of the ninth meeting, Newlands Room on 5 December 2016 at 2pm

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse (Chairman), Caroline Reeves, Jo Randall, and Pauline Searle. Also present: James Dearling (Scrutiny Officer), Justine Fuller (Environmental Health Manager), Chris Wheeler (Fleet and Waste Services Manager), and James Whiteman (Director of Environment).


There was an apology for absence from Councillor Marsha Moseley

2. Joint Enforcement Team Working Group

The Director of Environment advised the meeting that the Fleet and Waste Services Manager was leading on work developing environmental enforcement and the Head of Health and Community Care Services and the Environmental Health manager were leading on the development of a Council-wide enforcement policy. The group was advised that the Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety advocated a Joint Enforcement Team (JET) for Guildford, that the PCC had offered pump priming capital for a JET scheme, and the Director of Environment had been tasked with working up a JET proposal through a working group of officers and Lead Councillors. The group agreed to the suggestion that they view the presentations given to the working group on the JETs at Spelthorne and at Reigate and Banstead. The Director of Environment advised that the PCC had confirmed an offer of £50k capital funding for a Guildford JET. A business case was being drawn up for a JET in Guildford, including the enforcement that occurred in the Borough and how it was categorised. The business case included fly-tipping on private / public land, dog issues, and some littering. The appearance of the JET (i.e., uniforms) and possible similarities to the police were an issue to be addressed. The meeting was advised that a JET would enforce against fly-tipping, but not against issues such as anti-social parking near schools (which would be dealt with by advice and education). A JET would likely be tasked by the JAG and consist of 5 members of staff, but their location within the Council organisation had not been decided. With reference to a Council-wide enforcement policy, the Environmental Health Manager advised that disparate approaches to enforcement currently existed; a common policy would help ensure proportionate and consistent responses across the Council. The group was told that the work on the Council-wide enforcement policy would continue regardless of whether the Council opted to have a JET. The Head of Health and Community Care Services Community would be able to provide the group with the latest draft enforcement policy. The Fleet and Waste Services Manager advised that the environmental enforcement review had stopped until the likely outcome of the JET proposals became clearer. The group was informed that the Council could not use the Dog Fouling Act beyond November 2017 and would have to enforce using other legislation. The incidence of fly-tipping was steady in the Borough until the recycling charges were introduced earlier in the year. The Fleet and Waste Services Manager indicated that most fly-tipping consisted of domestic waste, rather than industrial of commercial waste, and this should inform the Council’s approach to the topic.

The group was advised that environmental enforcement review would address 4 areas: dog issues; fly-tipping; graffiti; and abandoned cars. The Fleet and Waste Services Manager indicated that the vast majority of cars reported as abandoned were erroneous reports, often involving parking disputes. The group was informed that the Council’s dedicated graffiti team had been ended. The Director of Environment advised that work on the JET and the corporate Enforcement policy was continuing, and that the review of environmental enforcement would follow on. The Environmental Health Manager indicated that a JET might improve the JAG. In response to questions from the group, the Fleet and Waste Services Manager advised that there were no gaps in the JAG and the JET proposals were developed in the context of the Council doing the most it could with its resources. The group was advised that Spelthorne Council JET consisted of 5 officers (including a supervisor). The group was informed that the Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety advocated a team of 7 staff, 7 days a week, but that there was some work to do to achieve this. In reply to a question about the impact noticed since the introduction of PiYN, the Fleet and Waste Services Manager indicated that anecdotal evidence linked a rise in reports of abandoned cars to the policing changes. In addition, call handlers at the police’s contact centre did not always understand the differences between nuisance dogs (a Council matter) and dangerous dogs (a police matter). Ways to signpost members of the public to the correct service were discussed, including through the Council’s new website and distributing publicity information on items such of fridge magnets. Arguments in favour of and against the creation of a JET were outlined to the meeting. The Director of Environment indicated that a JET co-ordinating with a JAG would be a good approach. In Spelthorne, the JET had been used to re-launch the JAG. In reply to a question, the Director of Environment indicated that whether JET staff were issued with stab vests or not would be the result of a risk assessment. The group was advised that the issue of a uniform was a separate issue. It was suggested to the group that Spelthorne was a London Borough in all but name. The group was advised that no decision had been taken regarding a Guildford JET and that a report would be submitted to the Executive in the New Year.


Notes of the tenth meeting, Newlands Room on 1 February 2017 at 10am

Present: Councillors Nigel Kearse (Chairman), Marsha Moseley, Jo Randall, Caroline Reeves, and Pauline Searle. Also present: Martin Clark (Local Security Management Specialist, Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust) and Philippa Coldham (Corporate Policy Assistant).

1. Apologies for absence and introductions

There was an apology for absence from James Dearling (Scrutiny Manager).

2. Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

The Chairman welcomed Martin Clark and indicated that the Group would like to hear more about his line of work, how the Policing in Your Neighbourhood (PiYN) changes have affected the NHS locally, particularly in relation to Farnham Road Hospital, and what future expectations they hold. Mr Clark informed the Group of his current role and the status of Farnham Road Hospital and Abraham Cowley Unit, in Chertsey. The Group noted that Mr Clark attended a police liaison meeting every six weeks to raise and resolve any issues that the hospital faced.

Mr Clark stated that over the last year the majority of the problems presented have occurred at Farnham Road Hospital. There had been occasions where drunk/aggressive patients had been dropped off by the police for a mental health act assessment under 136 section, and on occasions also with offensive weapons, but with whom the police did not stay and left the hospital. It had taken approximately a year for police to understand that Farnham Road Hospital is not a secure hospital, that patients are given S17 leave by consultants, wards are for the assessment and treatment of patients, and contains one Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). Police believed that the hospital staff are trained to deal with patients who are very aggressive, but once the situation went beyond a staff members training in control and restraint, they had to call the police to deal with the situation. This had resulted in danger to the staff, pressure on the suites and staffing, as they have had to calm a patient down. Mr Clark reported that (in 2015-16) there were 430 physical assaults where physical contact was made involving 468 staff. Two cases resulted in prosecution. The Trust has a respect programme which deters aggressive and discriminatory behaviour. The staff had found that police would not respond to their calls unless the patient had become threateningly aggressive. The police expected the hospital to have its own security, and although Farnham Road did originally have security, it had to be let go due to resource cuts. Farnham Road Hospital had experienced issues with patients not wanting to leave, but found that police were responsive to forcibly remove said patience from site.

Mr Clark advised the meeting that due to police resources cuts they were not always able to stay with the drunk/aggressive patient that they had brought to the hospital on a 136 section, but that police had, on occasion, been able to stay. The Group was made aware that although the police believed the staff should be trained in how to deal with difficult patients, the staff on reception are not, and a review into how to keep these members of staff safe had been investigated.

The Group was informed that the Surrey Police & Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Joint Working Protocol had produced a capacity form for staff to complete for criminal incidents involving patients, but that it was still subject to police resources whether the incident was investigated. A lot of time had been spent on providing police with evidence, including capacity statements, but very few crimes (assaults against staff and criminal damage) resulted in the offender being prosecuted. In response to a question on whether improvements had been seen by the changes implemented by the PiYN, Mr Clark answered that there has been improvement and he believed that greater communication, and regular meetings, had formed a stronger relationship with the police. In reply to a question, Mr Clark stated that further improvements they would like to see from the police are:

that staff feel assured that police will come to the hospital when called by staff (the Group noted that the police currently respond to 40% of calls)

that the police do not drop off Section 136’s in an aggressive or drunken state, or a member of the force is available to stay with them until they have calmed down

improved response times from the police When asked whether the Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust receives any support from Guildford Borough Council, Mr Clark responded that he is not aware of any support provided.

The Chairman thanked Mr Clark for attending and sharing information with them. The Chairman stressed that the situation with Farnham Road Hospital appeared to have improved, but only through increased communication, and with the best available resources. The Group raised the concern that the police appeared to be searching for an alternative place to take those that they are unable to deal with rather than the use of custody suites, and used the hospital for this purpose. The Group suggested that this could be due to the rising number of deaths in custody, and it should be investigated why the police do not want to deal with them.

3. Notes of previous meetings

The Group approved the notes of the previous four meetings: 5 October 2016, 12 October 2016, and the two meetings held on 5 December 2016.

4. Next Steps

The Group asked that all information from previous meetings be collated into a report with recommendations and circulated to the Group for comment. The Group would meet after it had reviewed the document to discuss further. The Group suggested that once the recommendations had been finalised, all stakeholders from previous meetings would be invited to discuss the report.

Appendix 2

Proposed Scrutiny Review:

Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey

1. Review Outline

Subject of review Implications of Changes to Policing in Surrey

Methodology / Approach Task and Finish Group

1.1 Reasons for the Review

Reasons for conducting this review [attach necessary background briefing papers / scoping material]

Changes to policing in Surrey will be implemented with effect from April 2016. The review will look into the likely impact of these changes for the Council and other agencies.

Key question that the review is seeking to answer

What are the most significant implications of the changes being planned by Surrey Police, what are the implications for the Council and other agencies and how will these be addressed.

Objectives of review/areas for investigation

1. To understand the implications of the changes being made to policing in Surrey, particularly for Council services, and to clarify future roles and responsibilities.

2. To investigate the range of anti-social behaviour and environmental enforcement powers available to the Council and Surrey Police and to assess their effectiveness.

3. To consider options to ensure continued effective partnership working between the Council and Surrey Police.

Outcomes expected from conducting this work

1. To raise awareness of the changes being introduced by Surrey Police and the associated implications.

2. To produce options and recommendations for future partnership working with the Surrey Police in relation to anti-social behaviour and other enforcement matters.

3. To provide evidence and make recommendations on the Council’s implementation of new anti-social behaviour legislation. (scheduled in the Corporate Plan for completion by September 2016).

4. To provide evidence and make recommendations to inform the Council’s review of environmental enforcement (scheduled in the Corporate Plan for completion by December 2016).

1.2 Possible sources of information

2. Project Plan and Resourcing

2.1 Councillor Involvement

O&S Councillor leading review

Other O&S Councillors involved

Key Executive Councillors Councillor Graham Ellwood (Lead Councillor for Community Safety and Licensing)

Other Executive portfolios covered Councillor Matt Furniss (Lead Councillor for Infrastructure and Environment)

Councillor Iseult Roche (Lead Councillor for Community, Health and Sport)

Councillor Tony Rooth (Lead Councillor for Housing and Social Welfare)

2.2 Officer Support and External Involvement

Lead Officer James Whiteman, Director of Environment

O&S officer James Dearling

Expert witnesses and possible co-optees

2.3 Council Services Expected to Contribute

Council Service Contribution Expected

Community Services Directorate Information and advice on environmental health, noise, licensing, housing and tenants, anti-social behaviour and community development.

Environment Directorate Information and advice on environmental enforcement, cleansing, parks and open spaces.

Corporate Services Directorate Information and advice on community safety, partnership working and statutory powers and responsibilities.

2.4 External Organisations to be Invited to Contribute / Submit Evidence

Organisation Contribution

Surrey Police Evidence and discussion on planned changes to policing in Surrey and future partnership working and priorities.

Office of Police and Crime Commissioner Evidence and discussion on planned changes to policing in Surrey and future partnership working and priorities.

2.5 Publicity and Awareness of the Review

Publicity activities to be undertaken Regular programme of press releases Report conclusion in Autumn 2016

2.6 Timetable for Core Phases of Review

Phase Time required Completion Date

Meetings and evidence gathering sessions

10 weeks 3 June 2016

Evaluation of evidence and formulate recommendations

4 weeks 1 July 2016

Produce the draft report 4 weeks 29 July 2016

Witness / Executive comment on report

3 weeks 19 August 2016

Consideration of draft report by OSC

- 13 September 2016

Report to relevant decision makers

- 27 September 2016 (Executive) 4 October 2016 (Council)

Surrey Police

Schedule monitoring of the implementation outcomes

2.7 Specific Costs Identified

Anticipated call on Scrutiny Budget None identified, although some small costs may be incurred (e.g. site visits).

2.8 Equalities Issues

Relevant equality and diversity issues in relation to the proposed scrutiny review

Due regard to all equality principles. Issues dependent on changes or developments to services, policies, or strategies.

2.9 Constraints / Barriers / Risks

Including timing constraints to when the review can be carried out

Police and Crime Commissioner elections in May 2016.

3. Signed Approval

Signed: (By Chair on behalf of Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

Date Agreed: (By Overview and Scrutiny Committee)

15 March 2016

Appendix 3

Community Safety Accredited Scheme powers

Table 1: Powers that chief officers may confer on accredited persons

(The Chief Constable of Surrey Police may choose to give accredited persons all, some, or none of the

below powers).

Power to issue penalty notices for disorder (See Table 2 below for a list of penalty notices for disorder that accredited persons can issue)

Power to issue fixed penalty notices for truancy

Power to issue fixed penalty notice in respect of an excluded pupil in a public place

Power to issue fixed penalty notices for cycling on a footpath

Power to issue fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly-posting

Power to issue fixed penalty notices for littering

Power to issue fixed penalty notices in relation to offences against certain byelaws

Power to require giving of name and address

Power to deal with begging

Power to require name and address for anti-social behaviour

Power to require name and address for road traffic offences

Power to require persons drinking in designated places to surrender alcohol

Power to require persons aged under 18 to surrender alcohol

Power to seize tobacco from a person aged under 16

Power to remove abandoned vehicles

Power to stop vehicles for testing

Power to stop cycles

Power to control traffic for purposes other than escorting a load of exceptional dimensions

Power to direct traffic for the purposes of escorting abnormal loads

Power to photograph persons away from a police station

Table 2: Offences for which accredited persons may issue a fixed penalty notice for disorder A chief officer of police may choose whether to give an accredited person the power to issue fixed penalty notices for all of the available fixed penalty offences or a selection of them).

Wasting police time, giving false report.

Using public electronic communications network to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another.

Knowingly gives or causes to be given a false alarm of fire to a person acting on behalf of a fire and rescue authority.

Behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Sells or attempts to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk.

Supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to a person aged under 18.

Sale of alcohol anywhere to a person under 18.

Buys or attempts to buy alcohol on behalf of a person under 18.

Buys or attempts to buy alcohol for consumption on relevant premises by a person under 18

Delivery of alcohol to person under 18 or allowing such delivery.

Breach of fireworks curfew.

Possession of a category 4 firework.

Possession by a person under 18 of an adult firework.

Trespassing on a railway.

Throwing stones at a train.

Consume alcohol in a designated public place, contrary to requirement by constable not to do so. repealed

Allowing consumption of alcohol by a person under 18 on relevant premises.

Buying or attempting to buy alcohol by a person under 18.

(The above outline information is taken from the Home Office guidance, updated February 2015.)


Appendix 4

Overview and Scrutiny Committee, ‘Surrey Police: Changes to Policing’,

Minute OS7, 15 March 2016

OS7 SURREY POLICE: CHANGES TO POLICING Inspector Graham Barnett provided a briefing to the Committee on Policing in Your Neighbourhood (PIYN) as the new model for Surrey Police and the resulting changes to the policing structure in the Borough. The Committee was advised that the PIYN changes would be in place from 3 April 2016. The Committee was advised of the background to the changes to policing. The Committee was informed that continuing the current policing model was not unaffordable and that the PIYN approach would both deliver savings and better address the changing nature of crime demand. The three elements of the existing Surrey Police model were outlined to the Committee; namely, investigation, response, and neighbourhood. Inspector Barnett advised that the new policing structure was designed to enable the police to focus on important issues of significant threat, harm, and risk to vulnerable people and members of the public. The Committee was advised of a media campaign to inform the public of when to contact the police, and when not to, along with changes in the methods available. Inspector Barnett indicated that approximately 30 per cent of the work undertaken by the police previously was judged low level and would not be dealt with under the new PIYN structure. He advised that other agencies and organisations had the abilities and enforcement powers to deal with such low level issues. The Committee was informed that experienced police officers would be placed in the police contact centre to help the effective triage of enquiries and advise accordingly. The Committee was advised that appropriate cases would be resolved over the phone. One of four teams would deal with cases requiring an officer to attend: CID, for serious and complex crime; a Safeguarding Investigation hub, for vulnerable victims of crime; an Area Policing Team for a 24 hour response to volume crime; and a Specialist Neighbourhood Team. Inspector Barnett stated that under PIYN there would be an increase to no less than 16 police officers on duty at any one time in the Borough. The Committee was advised that the team for neighbourhood policing in Guildford would become smaller, reducing to 2 police constables and 16 ward-aligned PCSOs (from the current 18 police constables and 16 PCSOs). Resourcing the neighbourhood policing team would be demand based; the reduction in the team would be possible due to a decreased demand in low level issues that Surrey Police dealt with. The police constables within the neighbourhood team would deal with serious and complex issues. The Committee was advised of new enforcement powers that would be given to PCSOs in Surrey Police, including the ability to issue penalty notices and to detain individuals for up to thirty minutes pending the arrival of a police officer. Questions from the Committee to Inspector Barnett and the Council’s Community Safety Officer raised the following points and information:

The Chief Constable of Surrey Police was accountable to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), and mindful of the PCC’s targets. The PCC sets the policing strategy for Surrey Police, but the direct day-to-day effect of the PCC on policing in Guildford is limited.

The Roads Policing Unit, Firearms, and Major Crime Team, were combined with Sussex Police and unaffected by the PIYN changes.

In response to a question, Inspector Barnett indicated that the changes and re-alignment of resources under PIYN resulted in approximately the same number of police officers for Guildford. The Committee was advised that the distribution of officers within Surrey Police’s PIYN model was based on demand.

Inspector Barnett indicated confidence that the policing capacity under PIYN would be adequate to address Guildford’s issues, providing there was a 30 per cent reduction in demand achieved through low level issues no longer being dealt with by the police. The Committee was advised that a 15 per cent reduction in demand had been achieved during a trial period of the triage and referral mechanisms at the Surrey Police contact centre.

In reply to a question about rural policing, Inspector Barnett indicated that he was hopeful that PIYN would enable improvements.

The Surrey Police contact centre would be manned by civilian staff, with police officers supporting the triage system.

In response to a question concerning the changes to policing and zero tolerance, the Committee was advised that the solvability and impact of an incident would feature in the police assessment of how to handle it.

The work of the Council’s Community Wardens was focused on achieving the Council’s health and wellbeing targets. The Director of Community Services indicated that the function of the Council’s Community Wardens was community development rather than enforcement, and that the two roles required different skills.

The importance of a continued close working relationship between the police and the Council under PIYN.

The Chairman thanked Inspector Barnett and the Community Safety Officer for attending and answering questions.

Selected references

DEFRA. Dealing with irresponsible dog ownership: Practitioner’s manual. October 2014.

HMIC. PEEL: Police effectiveness 2016: An inspection of Surrey Police. March 2017.

Home Office. Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Reform of anti-social behaviour

powers Statutory guidance for frontline professionals. July 2014.

Home Office. Guidance on community safety accreditation scheme (CSAS) powers. 2012 (updated

2015).

Surrey Police. Policing In Your Neighbourhood: post implementation review. (November 2016 draft;

publication forthcoming.)

Surrey Police & SABP, Surrey Police & Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust: Joint

Working Protocol, June 2016.

Wilson, Wendy Wilson. Anti-social neighbours living in private housing (England). House of Commons

Library Briefing Paper, Number 01012, February 2017.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/373429/dog-ownership-practitioners-manual-201411.pdf





http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01012