Agenda item

Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement, was in attendance to answer Members’ questions in relation to the Anti-Social Behaviour report included in the agenda pack.

Members queried the accuracy of the FPN figures as set out on page 36 of the agenda pack as some of these seemed very low. It was confirmed that the system currently in place was inadequate hence a spreadsheet had been created to record this information. It was recognised that the information presented did not align with ward boundaries. The statistics related to the deployment of environmental support officers. Members were informed that most FPNs came from contractors; in order for an FPN to be issued, the incident had to be witnessed firsthand. ANPR cameras were not generally effective in identifying offenders as the images they generated were not sufficiently detailed.

In response to further questions from the Select Committee, it was confirmed that deployment was based on problem areas such as high streets, Ruislip Lido and areas around Heathrow. This was updated regularly to meet requirements.

Members sought further clarification regarding the issuing of FPNs for fly tipping which did not appear on the list in the report. It was agreed that the Director of Community Safety and Enforcement would explore this further outside of the meeting. Members were advised that, in some instances, ANPR cameras were able to pick up fly tippers. Officers would then try to trace the number plate of the vehicle to identify the offender.

Councillors requested further information regarding the increase in anti-social behaviour. It was confirmed that all local authorities were witnessing an increase in anti-social behaviour. Since Covid, people were working from home more regularly and were therefore more likely to notice, and complain about, their neighbours’ behaviour. Moreover, the cost of living was another driver of anti-social behaviour.

Members enquired whether the current excel spreadsheet could be digitalised to facilitate the breakdown of FPN figures per ward. The Director of Community Safety and Enforcement acknowledged that customer service was inadequate at present. A new case management system was to be introduced which would help to address this. It was confirmed that the team had worked with the Police on a number of occasions in relation to ASB hotspots.  

The Select Committee sought further clarification in respect of actionable vs non-actionable incidents. It was confirmed that it was not always possible for the team to take any action due to insufficient location details. Members were informed that the ASB department held regular discussions with other teams, including Housing, to agree who would lead on a piece of work. The teams worked well together across the Council.

With regard to the relationship between the Council, the Police and management companies, it was confirmed that ASB got involved when problems were reported. The ASB localities team focused on more complex ASB cases such as those involving social landlords who were often reluctant to take action. It was hoped that the social housing regulator would assist with this in the future.

Councillors suggested that ‘No Ball Games’ signs be erected in car parks for children’s safety. No drinking signs were also recommended in high streets to encourage people to move on. It was reported that the Police were unable to take action if said signs were not in situ. It was agreed that the Director of Community Safety and Enforcement would explore this further.

With regards to fly tipping, Members observed that contractors would only pick up items that had been reported and left everything else behind. The Director of Community Safety and Enforcement confirmed that this should not be the case and agreed to follow this up with the contractor if examples were provided.

With regard to tower blocks and ASB in communal areas, it was acknowledged that this had been a challenge for a number of years. Members commented that short term policies did not appear to be working and felt a longer-term strategy was needed. It was confirmed that officers were now being equipped with as much guidance as possible, and information was being collected so officers could fully understand the problems and people involved. It was anticipated that this would assist in tackling the issue in the longer term.

Members sought further information regarding the strategy to deal with aggressive begging. It was acknowledged that this was difficult to eradicate – offenders were often of no fixed abode and did not pay the fines issued. It was confirmed that the team always followed up on complaints and tried to identify the offenders where possible. The Select Committee heard that aggressive begging had not been included in the previous PSPO as the Government had been consulting on the matter at the time as part of national legislation.

In respect of Members’ Enquiries, Councillors enquired how response times could be improved on. The Director of Community Safety and Enforcement acknowledged that the number of cases was vast, and the current team only comprised 14 people. The capacity required to manage the total caseload was currently being assessed. The result of said assessment was likely to indicate that more staff were required to deal with the caseload. Alternatively, the service provision would have to be reduced. It was considered that system improvements would make a significant difference. This matter would be reviewed going forward to ensure that reasonable demands were met. Members requested feedback to enable them to keep residents informed.

Councillors sought further clarification regarding the procurement process. It was confirmed that contract extensions were a Cabinet Member decision. A wider review of contracts would be undertaken going forward. Members heard that the current contract was cost neutral to the Council but other options were available.

Members reported that Actions Days were welcomed and were working very effectively.

Members referred to page 36 of the agenda pack noting that 79% of the FPNs appeared to relate to only 3 areas – Eastcote Ruislip (14%), Hayes Town (38%) and South Ruislip (27%). It was felt that the information presented did not provide an accurate picture of what was actually happening. Members requested sight of an updated report with accurate data within the next year. It was noted that in-house statistics needed to be separated from those of contractors. Moreover, the figures should include open spaces in addition to high streets.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the contents of the report and asked questions in order to clarify matters of concern or interest in the Borough; and

2.    That the Residents’ Services Select Committee provided comment on the draft anti-social behaviour policy for consideration when the policy is finalised for adoption by the Council.