Agenda item

5.1 Geeta Subramaniam (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced the item.

·      The new service was created following a proposal from the Lewisham Future Programme, which had been agreed by Mayor and Cabinet. This report details a review of the service after it had been operating for 6 months.

·      All staff had received training on all aspects of the work of the new service including PACE, which teaches staff to interview people under caution.

·      Information about the new service was not yet available in one place on the Council’s website. This was area that the service was looking to improve.

·      There had been a lot more activity in the area of licensing than originally expected, but no deadlines had been missed.

·      There had been 15 unauthorised traveller encampments in the borough since August 2015. In the same period last year, there had been three.

·      Some services had had to be stopped following budget reductions and the subsequent forming of the new service. A monthly surgery for any enforcement issues used to be organised for every month. This has now stopped as a standard practice. Instead a risk based approach is taken. A lot of preventative work in schools around good citizenship and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) has been decreased. A number of road shows to raise awareness about enforcement services have also stopped.

·      There are a number of risks for the service and its performance. Changes are happening in partner organisations such as the police, fire brigade and probation while the new service has been developing which could lead to problems in the future.

5.2 Geeta Subramaniam, Gary Connors (Strategic Community Safety Services Manager) and David Edwards (Food Safety Manager) responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·      Officers would investigate the issues raised by Committee Members that residents had found it difficult to reach the noise abatement service over the weekend to report noise, and would provide feedback to the Committee. The number of complaints around noise was greatly reduced compared to the same period last year.

·      The work by the contact centre that captures issues raised by residents was under constant review. There were currently two members of staff whose main job was to respond to any contacts made within 48 hours, and ensure an appropriate follow-up to the issue was put in place. Issues around trading standards could sometime take more than 48 hours for a reply as specific advice could be needed before an appropriate response could be provided. Where residents were suffering from alarm, distress or harassment they would always be referred to the police.

·      There are areas where there is a clear overlap between the work of the CER and planning enforcement, but there are also clear areas where the work of planning enforcement ties in more closely with the work of the rest of the planning service. One consideration for the future could be to look at including planning enforcement in the CER, but this would need to be carefully considered. First senior officers responsible for both area would need to discuss the options.

·      The savings target for this service area had been met.

·      The CER performed test purchasing of licensed goods such as tobacco, alcohol and knives to test whether premises were adhering to their licenses. The service did not have an obligation to adhere to the safeguards expected of a full police review, but had still chosen to follow such guidelines. There had recently been an inspection by commissioners which judged this particular part of the service to be functioning well.

·      The service was moving to a system where instead of issuing many temporary events notices for the same premises, premises would apply for a venue license. This had the advantage that conditions could be set on the license which would be enforceable.

·      The service reports on the number of cases raised but it would be difficult for the service to meaningfully capture and quantify the success rate of the response to each case.

·      The service had made their work around contaminated land an area of focus.

·      The new IT contract would allow staff to properly record information while travelling through the borough as part of their work. This improved mobile working service should significantly reduce unnecessary travel time back to the office for staff.

·      The list of training provided to staff is extensive and all staff have completed all those training sessions. But just about all members of staff would have used knowledge from all those different sessions within a two week period of working for the new service.

·      There were no concerns around staff retention at this point, as some members of staff from elsewhere in the organisation had specifically asked to be notified if new positions became available.

·      A risk based approach has been used in the area of food safety since the early 1990s. Venues were assessed for whether they cater to vulnerable groups such as hospital, schools or nursing homes. They were also assessed for whether they were using particularly high-risk methods such as for example dry ice. If a complaint was raised about a venue, an immediate review would take place.

5.3 Standing orders were suspended at 21.25 to enable the completion of the Committee’s business.

5.4 The Committee made a number of comments. The following key points were noted:

·      The Committee requested again that a brief note would be circulated to all Councillors to inform them about the services provided by the Crime, Enforcement and Regulation Service, the contact details for the team, and the hours they are contactable.

·      The Committee expressed concern about depleted resources for the Environmental Protection Service given the potentially disastrous consequences of cases of contaminated land.

·      If partner organisations and external agencies were experiencing budget cuts, there was a risk for the service provided to residents if these organisation had to be relied upon for referrals.

·      That the service seemed to be doing good work and needed to be properly supported in their communications with the public. The information on the Council’s website should be improved so all information about the service was in one easy to find location.

5.5 The Committee resolved to advise Mayor and Cabinet of the following:

The Committee was concerned about the depleted resources available to the environmental services including those areas dealing with contaminated land. The Committee sought assurances that adequate resources have been put in place to both minimise the risk of a major incident occurring and, should a major incident occur, that sufficient resources are in place to respond given the potentially serious consequences.

The Committee was also concerned about the increased reliance by the service on external agencies to provide advice and support to residents (such as Consumer Advice). The Committee specifically highlighted the dependence on organisations in the voluntary sector in light of reducing budgets in both the voluntary sector and public sector more generally. 

The Committee noted the good work done by the new Crime, Enforcement & Regulation Service (CER) and the Environmental Health Service during and following reorganisation. The Committee felt this work should be adequately supported by a dedicated communications strategy as well as general support from the Council’s communications service, especially with regards to information on the service being available in one place on the Council’s website.

5.6 RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the report, and the Committee’s views as listed were referred to Mayor and Cabinet.