Agenda item

Resolved: to note the updates from the borough commanders; to request additional information from the borough fire commander about the profile of incidents in Lewisham Central ward.

3.1      The Chair invited Chief Superintendent Russell Nyman (Borough Commander, Metropolitan Police Service, Lewisham) to provide an update on policing in Lewisham; the following key points were noted:

• He had been borough commander in Lewisham for the past two years and had recently found out that he would be moved to a different posting.
• He had also recently heard that the number of Chief Inspectors in Lewisham would reduce from six to four.
• The Local Policing Model had been in place for a year and implementation had been successful.
• There were now 159 neighbourhood officers in the borough.
• Crime figures were down for the third year in a row.
• There had been a significant decrease in burglaries – which had reduced by 39% in a year.
• Conversely, there had been a significant increase in the incidence of violence with injury.
• The increase in assaults was not confined to Lewisham. Neighbouring boroughs and local forces across London had struggled to reduce this type of crime.
• The quarterly survey of public attitudes to policing indicated that the confidence with policing in Lewisham was running high. The five year low for confidence in local policing had been 31% and the five year high for local policing had been 63%. The current level was 61%.
• Confidence had improved by 15% in the last two quarters.

3.2      Keeley Smith (Borough Commander, London Fire Brigade) provided an update to the Committee about the fire service in Lewisham. Information was circulated at the meeting, which set out the fire appliance attendance times for wards previously covered by Downham fire station; the following key points were noted:

• The Committee had previously expressed its concern about the Fifth London Safety Plan proposal to close Downham fire station. The plan had been implemented and Downham fire station had been closed.
• The attendance time figures for the areas previously covered by Downham fires station were better than those that had been modelled in the LSP5 proposals.
• First appliance attendance times were mostly within the target time of six minutes.
• Attendance times for second fire engines in Downham, Forest Hill, Sydenham and Whitefoot were outside the target time (eight minutes)
• The LFB still had better attendance times than many other forces in the country.

3.3      Keeley Smith (Borough Commander, London Fire Brigade) responded to questions from the Committee; the following key points were noted:

• An appliance from Forest Hill station was being utilised elsewhere in order to provide emergency fire cover during strike periods in the on-going industrial action. Attendance times in Forest Hill and Sydenham had reduced as a result, particularly second appliance attendance times.
• The second appliance would be away from Forest Hill during the whole period of industrial action.
• However, the Borough also had the use of an additional fire engine in New Cross – due to the current rebuilding of the Old Kent road fire station.
• The fire fighters based at Forest Hill continued to be involved in prevention work – when they had time available.
• The deployment of additional fire engines was a decision for incident commanders. The number of fire engines mobilised was determined by the type of incident. Additional engines might also be despatched, dependent on conditions at the scene of the incident.
• Fire fighters might wait for the attendance of the second appliance (and additional fire fighters) before entering a building in some instances; however, this was based on judgement of the risks associated with the incident.
• The Service’s mobilising system identified the nearest fire appliance regardless of the Borough- because the areas covered by fire stations did not mirror borough boundaries.
• Fire appliances were moved strategically, dependent on the incidents they were attending as well as other incidents and deployments in the area.
• In the case of a large fire, the borough would not be left without cover. If appliances were moved out of the borough, other engines would provide coverage.
• It was not known if engines were mobilised as far away as the Shard at London Bridge; or if the Shard was responsible for excessive numbers of false alarms.
• Each borough commander worked with those responsible to deal with repeat false alarms.
• The LFB had developed a procedure for charging organisations that repeatedly called fire fighters to release people shut in lifts.
• The LFB and MPS worked in partnership with the Council – and looked for ways to work more closely together.

3.4      Russell Nyman (Borough Commander, MPS Lewisham) responded to questions from the Committee; the following key points were noted:

• He had not heard of any plans to ask borough commanders to cover two boroughs, although the idea had previously been talked about.
• The MPS was required to save 20% of its budget by 2016, so there would be a wide range of proposals being put forward.
• Approximately 85-90% of the cost of policing was spent on staffing – so there would be a staffing impact of achieving the 20% saving.
• There were some difficult decisions facing the MPS as it attempted to deliver savings and continue to improve performance.
• There remained a need to carry out stop and search – based on the balance of risks.
• The MPS in Lewisham had adopted a robust approach with officers carrying out stops.
• The force had halved the number of stop and searches in the borough in the past two years.
• It was expected that 20% of stop and searches should result in seizure (of weapons or drugs) in Lewisham the figure was 23%.

Resolved: to note the updates from the borough commanders; to request additional information from the borough fire commander about the profile of incidents in Lewisham Central ward.