Agenda item

Role Of Safer Schools Police Officers

 

PC Allyson Keith attended the meeting and provided Members with details of the role of Safer Schools Police Officers.

 

There were 9 police officers in total with one each allocated to the following groups of schools:-

·        Hillingdon Tuition Centre, Chantry School, Harefield Academy, The Douay Martyrs School.

·        Queensmead School, Vyners School, Bishop Ramsey C of E Secondary School, Ruislip High School.

·        Northwood High School, Haydon School.

·        Swakleys School, Abbotsfield School, Hillingdon Manor School.

·        Rosedale College, Parkside College, Hewins College.

·        Harlington Community School.

·        Stockley Academy, Bishopshalt School.

·        Uxbridge High School, Meadow High School.

·        Barnhill Community High School, Guru Nanak Sikh Secondary School.

 

Generally each officer was deployed from 9.00am till 5.00pm every school day to ensure each school was problem free. Most problems occurred outside of school hours, generally after school, and dependent on the level of the problem, teams of officers could be deployed to incidents.

 

During school hours, officers patrolled schools, ensuring the vicinity of schools were problem free. Outside of school term times the officers became a Borough resource and were deployed accordingly.

 

Liaison took place with Transport Police and schools to ensure good communication took place to ensure joined up working.

 

Members were informed that the Police had a limited role inside of schools, as general school discipline was the responsibility of teaching staff. However, the Police did intervene if offences occurred, and dependent on the offence, cautions were issued to offenders.

 

The Police assisted with the Truancy patrols and were used as a deterrent to truancy.

 

Members were informed that the Safer Schools Police Officers scheme began in Hillingdon in 2005 and although all 22 Secondary schools in the Borough were covered, there were high priority schools which received greater focus and attention.

 

Crime Prevention Bus

 

PC Dave Tennyson attended the meeting and provided details on the Crime Prevention Bus.

 

Members were informed that the Crime Prevention Bus was purchased in 2003 at a purchase cost of around £34,000.

 

The resource was operated by and liveried for the “Hillingdon Crime Prevention Panel” which was a sub-group of Hillingdon Community and Police Consultative Group.  The Panel had now wound up as crime prevention was now effectively run by the Council and Police jointly under the Safer Hillingdon Partnership. 

 

The Council had taken over ownership of the vehicle and was the registered keeper.  Road tax and maintenance were covered under the Council’s fleet management arrangements at a cost of about £1,000 per year.

 

Previous to the last 12 months, the vehicle was heavily used by Police Crime Prevention Officers and Safer Neighbourhood Teams for public events, dispensing crime prevention advice and re-assurance.  However, over the last 12 months its use had dropped significantly due to pressures on Safer Neighbourhood Teams.

 

Members noted that it would be valuable to assess whether it was likely to be useful under the new Local Policing Model to be introduced in 2013. 

 

Although the vehicle was 10 years old and maintenance costs were likely to rise in future years, the vehicle had a relatively low mileage and the only cost to the Council, was the revenue costs.

 

Members asked for details on the past usage of the Crime Prevention Bus and agreed that the resource should be promoted to enable greater usage for the community of the Borough. Reference was made to the possibility of using the resource at Council and community events and that volunteers with the relevant driving licence could be asked to come forward to help with the use of the vehicle.

 

London Borough of Hillingdon CCTV Service

 

The Council’s Community Safety and CCTV Manager attended the meeting and provided the review with information on the Council’s CCTV service.

 

There were over 700 CCTV cameras throughout the Borough which were managed by the Council. These were located on housing property, were used as part of public safety and bus lane enforcement, used in car parks, around parks and open spaces, around the Civic Centre and around the Manor Farm complex.

 

Each set of cameras were managed by different Council service areas.

 

Members were informed that with regard to the public safety cameras, recording took place 24 hours a day. However, some concern was expressed that these cameras were only monitored from 5.00pm till 2.00am which would have implications on the number of prosecutions the Council made.

 

Reference was made to the 11 cameras which were coverted for fly tipping hotspots in the Borough. Members were informed that in 2009 the Council managed to obtain 50 fly tipping prosecutions but since the introduction of the late afternoon / early evening only monitoring, there had been no prosecutions.

 

Members were advised that a re-introduction of 24 hour monitoring would have staff and cost implications.

 

In response to a question, Members were informed that Fly Tipping had to be prosecuted through the Courts (s.33 Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) 1990 offences do not have a fixed penalty notice option whereas littering under s.87 EPA does)

 

The Courts could fine the defendant but this income did not come to the Council, it was retained by HM Courts Service. The Council only received an amount up to, and not more than, its actual costs in bringing the prosecution to court.  

 

Members asked that officers provide statistics on the calls which were received to the CCTV room between monitoring hours of 5.00pm to 2.00am.   

 

The Committee was informed that for 2013/14 there was a major CCTV project with the conversion of more cameras from analogue to digital. This would enable the transmission of images from cameras to local libraries using wireless technology. Images could then be stored on library internet servers and images would then be retrieved from the library server to the CCTV room over the existing internet connection.

 

The benefits of digital conversion would be:

 

• Reduction of revenue costs as digital cameras would cost around £315 per annum for each camera whereas for analogue fibre rental for existing cameras, the cost was currently £800 per camera.
• Business continuity would be improved.
• Flexible working location for staff.
• There could be the possibility of sharing access of images with the Police. Further investigation would be needed in terms of the Data Protection implications and the additional costs which would result. 

 

Members also raised the possibility of investigating whether other organisations such as The Chime Shopping Centre could also access these digital images which would reduce costs and increase further the prevention of crime.

 

The Committee was informed that there would also be a procurement exercise to obtain one major maintenance contract for all 700 CCTV cameras which would reduce costs.

 

Reference was made to the 11 mobile CCTV cameras which were managed by the Community Safety Team. Most of these were located around the Borough as a result of Police information on anti social behaviour hotspots and were positioned for a period of between 8 and 12 weeks at a time.

 

Members were asked to contact the Community Safety Team for any suggested areas within their wards which they thought warranted the use of these mobile cameras. 

 

The Community Safety and CCTV Manager would provide details of the locations of all the CCTV cameras within the Borough.

 

Prior to the next meeting of the Committee, Members would be invited to take a look at the CCTV control room within the Civic Centre.

 

Older Peoples Burglar Alarms

 

Members were provided with short presentation on the scheme which summarised the information which Members had received at their last meeting.

 

Witnesses were thanked for the information they had provided for the review.

 

RESOLVED –

 

1.   That information received from the witnesses be noted and form part of the evidence for the review.

 

2.  That officers be asked to undertake the actions outlined above and relevant witnesses be invited to the next meeting of the Committee.