Agenda item

The Community Safety Manager provided an update on the progress of the North Worcestershire Community Safety Partnership (NWCSP) for the period January 2025 to January 2026.

The key priority areas were as follows:

• Public place violence and Serious Violence Duty
• Anti-social behaviour (ASB), nuisance and environmental issues
• Shoplifting and neighbourhood crime
• Protecting vulnerable communities
• Serious organised crime (SOCJAG model)

The key activity delivered were as follows:

• ‘Right Path’ youth violence intervention with 21 young people supported.
• Respect Programme engaging 250+ vulnerable young people.
• Redeployable Close Circuit Television (CCTV) deployments district-wide.
• Nominated Neighbour Scheme and targeted support for older/vulnerable residents.
• Domestic abuse support through R.U.N Our Space CIC.
• Significant partnership work with the Police on hotspot patrols, knife crime (Op Sceptre Week) and illegal vape enforcement.

Members were informed that overall progress was strong across priority areas, despite reduced Police Crime and Commissioner (PCC) ring-fenced funding of 15%. The Partnership continued to respond to complex ASB, crime prevention needs and safeguarding vulnerabilities.

After the presentation, discussions were carried out as follows:

• Members referred to the ASB tools table showing planning enforcement cases, where the outcome was recorded as “non compliance” and asked what happened next when someone failed to comply? – In response the Community Safety Manager explained that since Worcester Regulatory Services (WRS) had taken over planning enforcement, they follow a detailed, statutory process.  This typically involved repeated contact with the individual who had contravened planning requirements, exploring options to resolve the breach and then considering escalation where necessary. Non-compliance could therefore take time to address.  It was agreed that Officers would seek a more detailed explanation from the WRS Planning Enforcement Manager and provide this to Members.

• A Member asked about the Bromsgrove Youth Hub utilisation, specifically whether young offenders or those known to Youth Justice Services attended and whether there was a dedicated mental health worker attached to the Hub? – It was advised by the Community Safety Manager that the Hub was an independent organisation.  Some young people attending may be offenders or involved with the Youth Justice Service but for safeguarding and GDPR reasons, this information was not shared.  Staff have expertise in special educational needs, mental health and trauma informed practice.  The Hub effectively bridged a gap between corporate/clinical mental health services and the support offered by the voluntary and community sector.

• Members expressed the view that the Vulnerable and Older Person Pilot Project in Alvechurch was very worthwhile but queried how well it was publicised, noting that only residents had signed up despite a large potential audience. It was also queried how awareness and uptake could be improved? – In response it was explained that the pilot faced challenges around attendance and sign up, however, lessons were being used to refine the approach before rolling out to other areas.  A key adjustment was shifting promotion to target relatives, friends and neighbours of vulnerable residents. The concept was that a trusted neighbour for example, provided support and early intervention before rogue traders or scammers could reach the vulnerable person.  Additional online resources were being created for tech savvy relatives and neighbours to help them support older or vulnerable family members.

A Member from the Alvechurch Ward explained that describing events as being “for vulnerable adults” was off putting for some residents, as many older people did not see themselves as vulnerable. It was suggested that promoting events as a way to avoid scams and rogue traders might be more effective, citing a local case of a resident losing over £50,000 to a roofing scam.  It was also queried how the project might link into women’s safety/“Real Women” initiatives? – The Board were informed that the Real Women event, led by the Hub with Safer Bromsgrove funding, had delivered a taster day, including information on personal safety, domestic abuse support and Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG).  Further work was planned with the police on VAWG, with the Youth Hub seen as a key venue but additional venues and providers would also be considered to broaden reach.

• A Member involved in the Alvechurch Nominated Neighbour pilot asked whether other target areas in Bromsgrove had been identified and what lessons were being taken forward? – Members were advised that Officers had been in contact with Councillor Ammar about piloting the scheme in their ward.  The Housing partner Bromsgrove District Housing Trust (BDHT) had also expressed interest in applying a similar model in some sheltered housing schemes, however, may require further financial outlay, potentially requiring cameras and other security measures. 

• A Member requested clear guidance on redeployable cameras, noting there appeared to be two different schemes (for crime/ASB and for fly tipping). The Member asked what situations were suitable or not suitable for redeployable cameras, who operated which scheme and how could Members request cameras? - In response the Community Safety Manager explained that there were two distinct schemes which included a Community Safety redeployable CCTV scheme for crime and ASB and a WRS led environmental crime scheme for fly tipping, where more covert cameras could be used under different legal powers.

It was further explained that the community safety cameras must comply with the Code of Practice for Surveillance and the Information Commissioner’s requirements, meaning the following:

·         There must be evidence of a crime/ASB problem.

·         A consultation with residents and stakeholders was required.

·         Signage must be displayed.

·         Cameras were usually mounted on County Council lampposts that must be structurally suitable.

·         Cameras were typically deployed for 8–12 weeks, primarily as a deterrent but they also captured evidence for police or ASB enforcement.

Members also queried how long the consultation would last, what happened if residents object or if significant ASB or crime was captured during the 8–12 week deployment? – The Community Safety Manager advised that a consultation was typically for a period of 4–6 weeks.  Objections did not automatically stop a deployment but significant local opposition might mean a camera couldn’t be installed.  Decisions to install permanent public space CCTV were separate and would be a matter for the Council, requiring discussion with senior officers, consideration of cost and inclusion in the Council’s fixed CCTV scheme. The Police representative also added that from an operational standpoint, it was often better to rotate cameras rather than leave them permanently in one place, to avoid simply displacing the problem.  Close collaboration with local Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT) was essential to ensure that qualitative and quantitative data supported any bid for a camera.

Members also queried if a Parish Council could fund a permanent camera of their own, requesting information on costs and equipment specifications, citing ongoing ASB and damage in their Ward and nearby areas. – In response the Police representative advised that historic costings for cameras had been prepared and could be shared with the Members. The police were aware of issues in the related areas and had tactical plans in place, including use of SmartWater at access points and joint work with rangers and other partners. These plans could be shared with the local Members to reassure residents.

·         A Member praised an appendix provided as part of the agenda which gave an overview of Police-led ASB and Crime actions for the reporting period as an excellent summary but expressed the view that Members and residents did not usually see this level of detail.  It was queried if the data covered her area which fell under a Rubery policing team and if further localised and regular data could be shared to inform residents? – The Police representative advised that the data covered the Bromsgrove District as a whole, inclusive of her ward, even though policing teams were split.  The force was working to improve the ability to drill down by ward/area and to focus on more recent data to keep responses targeted.  Officers were also encouraging more use of surgeries, surveys and newsletters to promote positive outcomes to residents who were not online.

Members also praised the brief reported, in particular, with regard to the County Lines Week of Action which highlighted 68 arrests in a week, seizing over £2.5 million worth of drugs and over £21,000 in cash. – In response the Police representative informed Members that since the reporting a new Police Inspector had been recruited, with further improvements carried out for this line of work.  Members noted that regular crime action Newsletters were circulated through various methods (social media, medical centres and community centres). 

·         A Member explained difficulties obtaining crime statistics for South Bromsgrove / Blackwell via West Mercia’s online tools, despite being able to access data for North Bromsgrove as residents had requested confirmation of burglaries and attempted burglaries in their area. – It was acknowledged that some online tools were postcode based and could be confusing where policing boundaries crossed areas but encouraged the Member to contact the local inspector. 

·         The Chairman queried the Safe Places scheme and expressed the view that many participating venues had frequent staff turnover and queried how often Safe Places were revisited and if staff were reminded of their responsibilities? – In response the Community Safety Manager advised that the scheme was coordinated by a Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisation based in Wyre Forest.  It was aimed to revisit Safe Places approximately every 6–12 months to check arrangements and refresh training.  Members were also informed that the scheme was originally developed for people with learning disabilities, who often participated directly in delivering the training to venue staff.  There was a recognised challenge in keeping pace with staff changes but the partnership was working to maintain coverage.

·         Members referred to the knife detecting poles and questions were raised as follows: what happened if someone walked through with a knife, did the equipment trigger automatically and if there was always a Police Officer present? – The Police representative and Community Safety Manager informed Members that knife arches and poles were only deployed as part of police led operations and informed Members that Police Officers were always present when the equipment was in use (e.g. at the Bromsgrove railway station).  The equipment would alert officers if it detected metal and were positioned to intervene immediately.  Often potential offenders seeing the arch/pole would try to discard weapons before passing through and these discarded items can also be recovered.  The Police also supported national knife amnesty initiatives with surrender bins at police stations and Members were invited to attend future operations as observers.

The Portfolio Holder queried whether knife arches were used routinely at schools, given national media reports of knife crime? – In response the Police Representative advised that knife arches were not used routinely in schools and would only be considered if there was clear intelligence of a specific issue.  It was also advised that routine use risked heightening fear and perception of crime among pupils and parents.  The focus was instead on prevention and education, including district schools and police panels bringing all tiers of schools together with police which included youth workers and mentors in schools. 

·         The Portfolio Holder and other Members raised concerns about social media driven “school wars” (e.g. red vs blue) and associated fears about weapons (including everyday items like scissors or protractors).  Questions included: What intelligence existed locally, how were police and partners responding and how was this being tackled across schools and counties? – The Police representative and Community Safety Manager advised that the phenomenon was national, with images and messages generated by anonymous accounts, often outside the local area.  Locally, West Mercia Police had worked closely with schools’ safeguarding leads, shared intelligence through schools police panels and taken positive action where specific individuals could be identified.  However, Members were advised that to date there had not been any reporting of this nature within the local areas.

It was also advised that through the Respect Programme and the Right Path project, mentors were in every middle and high school in Bromsgrove and the wider area, working with young people at risk of becoming involved in serious violence, they are referred by schools, social workers and the police and detached youth workers and youth providers were feeding intelligence back into multi agency forums.

A Member from the Rubery Ward advised of multiple issues involving noise, ASB, rogue traders, youth behaviour and shops supplying illicit products.  It was asked how all of these strands (police, WRS, trading standards, housing etc.) were joined up under one umbrella and how multi agency working was coordinated? – Members were advised of the following: At district level the Safer Bromsgrove group met every 6 weeks, chaired by Community Safety, with attendance from the Police, WRS, housing, fire, parish reps and others with areas of concern were standing items.  At North Worcestershire level, the NWCSP met regularly, chaired by the Executive Director, considering cross district issues and commissioning.  At County level, the Safer Communities Board brought together North and South Worcestershire CSPs with the County Council and others to ensure learning was shared across Worcestershire.  The police chaired a Multi-Agency Task and Enforcement Group (MATES) for the north of Worcestershire, bringing together WRS, Trading Standards, housing, fire and other agencies to tackle complex problems collectively.

·         The cease and desist letters listed within the agenda was raised by Members and various questions were asked which included: What types of behaviour these letters were used for, whether they could be used in a case where a resident was persistently harassed by a neighbour but the neighbour refused to answer the door to Police or Housing Officers and what enforcement options were available if the letter was ignored? – The Police representative advised that cease and desist letters were a low level, early intervention tool in the wider ASB toolkit.  Where behaviour continued, the Police and Council could escalate through powers such as Community Protection Warnings and Community Protection Notices and in some cases Criminal Behaviour Orders.  Residents experiencing ongoing harassment should ensure issues are reported to the local SNT.