Agenda item

Richard Webb, Director of Community Safety and Enforcement, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions and requests for clarification in respect of the Draft Community Safety Strategy.

Members began by asking when the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) Coordinator would be appointed and what governance procedures would apply if recruitment were delayed. It was explained that this had been discussed recently and funding for the post was being considered. It was confirmed that the role was recognised as essential to enable integrated work with the management board. Probation services were reviewing operational details and practices elsewhere, and a proposal would be brought to the next Safer Hillingdon Partnership meeting alongside other elements of the strategy and delivery plan. The Director of Community Safety and Enforcement noted that funding constraints would limit the ability to deliver some areas, but ambitions were being set where strengthening was required.

Councillors then referred to a recent Safer Neighbourhood Team meeting at which suggestions had been made about improving lighting in certain roads and alleyways. They asked whether such measures could be included in the strategy to create safer spaces. The Director of Community Safety and Enforcement responded that requests for lighting and alleyway improvements were received regularly through resident feedback and petitions. However, these were often problematic due to issues such as privacy, light intrusion, and costs associated with maintaining mirrors, which were frequently damaged and required replacement. Barriers to prevent cycling in alleyways could also restrict accessibility. It was explained that the delivery plan included the establishment of the Hillingdon Enforcement Safety Panel, a new group tasked with identifying locations where safety risks existed and improvements could be made. Resident requests would be referred to this group for consideration. The Officer added that the Anti-Social Behaviour Team currently reviewed such requests, but the new approach would provide a stronger, partnership-based response, although not all requests could be satisfied.

The Committee raised a further point regarding green spaces, suggesting that the possibility of locking them should be reconsidered due to concerns about drug-related issues. The Officer acknowledged this and confirmed that the matter would be referred back to the Cabinet Member, noting that the decision to unlock green spaces had been made earlier in the year for various reasons.

Councillors then queried the proposed panels—the Hillingdon Enforcement Safety Panel and the IOM panel—asking what hard targets would apply to each, such as hotspot resolution times, reduction in repeat victimisation, or reoffending rates, and what baseline measures would be used. It was explained that a new performance framework for anti-social behaviour was being developed, partly driven by requirements from the social housing regulator. This framework would include indicators such as the speed of risk assessment for cases, satisfaction surveys, and resolution times. It was confirmed that this work was in progress and that the Committee would receive details in the next ASB update, including the indicators being collected and performance against them, which would represent an improvement on previous arrangements. Regarding the IOM panel, it was stated that targets had not yet been developed because the panel had not commenced, but they would be probation-focused and linked to reducing reoffending, which was a statutory duty. The Officer emphasised that success would be measured by the effectiveness of approaches to reducing reoffending.

Members referred to recent announcements by the Mayor of London about cutting 1,700 police officer posts and closing front counters across London, leaving only two operating 24 hours a day. They asked what impact these changes might have on the community safety strategy and whether the implications for residents had been considered. In response, it was confirmed that the matter had been discussed at the Safer Hillingdon Partnership. While the changes did not directly affect the strategy, the Partnership aimed to maintain a clear public strategy reflecting resident priorities and data. The Officer noted that the police were a key partner and that questions would be asked about the local impact of reductions. Although unable to speak on behalf of the police, the Director of Community Safety and Enforcement stated that discussions indicated efforts were being made to avoid impacts on frontline policing. Any significant changes would be monitored through partnership data and police reports at each meeting to understand practical outcomes.

The Select Committee commented on the need for clearer performance measures, observing that outputs in the strategy lacked definition and were difficult to measure. Councillors suggested linking outputs to specific reviews, such as the anti-social behaviour review, to clarify what measurements were being used. In response, it was confirmed that the partnership would have a delivery plan containing specific measures, which would be presented to the Committee as part of six-monthly performance reviews and police updates. These measures would not appear in the strategy itself but would be developed and agreed by the partnership and reviewed regularly.

Finally, Members asked whether the Anti-Social Behaviour priority in the Strategy could include specific provisions for tower blocks, as these were major locations for such behaviour. They highlighted issues arising when partial closure orders expired, allowing problems to return quickly, and suggested that processes be put in place to enable back-to-back applications for closure orders to prevent recurrence. Officers agreed that this was an important point and confirmed that tower blocks and similar communal areas would be reflected in the strategy as a particular focus.

The Chair concluded by referring members to the recommendation that the Select Committee review the draft community safety strategy and provide comments for consideration before final approval by Cabinet. The Chair proposed liaising with the Labour lead outside the meeting to draft comments through Democratic Services, subject to members’ agreement.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee:

1. reviewed the draft Community Safety Strategy for the Borough; and

2. delegated the drafting of any comments for the consideration of Cabinet to Democratic Services in conjunction with the Chair and in consultation with the Labour Lead.