Agenda and minutes

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any personal and /or prejudicial interests in any item on the agenda.

None

A total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to make a statement(s) on any matter that falls within the remit of the Committee.

Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes, but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned, where there are a number of speakers

None

To comment on the draft Safer Cheshire East Partnership Plan and make recommendations to the Safer Cheshire East Partnership.

Consideration was given to the Safer Cheshire East Partnership Plan, prior to it being submitted to the Safer Cheshire East Partnership for approval. The plan set out the partnerships priorities, how they would be addressed and emerging issues and trends.

Members of the Committee made the following comments:

• With regard to paragraph 2.1, it was noted that only 54% of residents felt safe after dark, Members agreed that street lighting and CCTV needed to be improved and the Designing Out Crime Policy strengthened. It was also agreed that Ward Councillors should be consulted prior to any improvements being made.
• With regard to paragraph 2.2, Members questioned whether or not the pledge was still necessary as it was connected to confidence targets which had now been removed.
• With regard to paragraph 4.3, it was agreed that reference should be made to the Youth Offending Team and Restorative Justice.
• With regard to paragraph 4.4 – where do we want be, Members agreed that the second bullet point should be amended to read ‘continue to effectively deploy partnership resources in key areas of concern to promote public reassurance’.
• It was noted that works to consolidate and integrate the three CCTV control rooms would be competed by March 2011.
• Members agreed that anti social alcohol consumptions in public areas such as parks needed to be targeted.

RESOLVED

That the Safer Cheshire East Partnership be recommended to approve the plan subject to consideration being given to the comments highlighted above.

To make recommendations on the proposed service level agreement, between the Safer Cheshire East Partnership and Cheshire Constabulary, in relation to the funding of 16 Police Community Support Officers.

Consideration was given to the Service Level Agreement, between the Safer Cheshire East Partnership and Cheshire Constabulary in relation to the funding of 16 Police Community Support Officers. The Portfolio Holder for Safer and Stronger Communities attended the meeting to answer any questions.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Committee that the SLA had not yet been signed as she wanted to consult Scrutiny and ensure that the agreement was the best that could be achieved for the Council.

The following comments and recommendations were made:

• Members stressed the importance of ensuring that double taxation did not apply and raised concerns regarding the PCSO’s not being deployed evenly across the Borough. It was agreed that one way to address this issue would be to deploy them on a LAP basis as this would ensure a fair distribution. The Portfolio Holder commented that this may constrain the deployment of the wardens and therefore not create value for money. She did however agree to consider this issue further.
• Members emphasised that in order for the Service Level Agreement to be successful, the relationship with senior police officers needed to be robust. The Portfolio Holder assured the Committee that the correct level of communication would be in place.
• With regard to paragraph 5 – management of the PCSO’s, it was agreed that the section relating to the Borough Council receiving a refund if vacant positions were not filled within six weeks needed to be strengthened. Members also agreed that the name of each warden should be known by the Borough Council as this would enable the authority to monitor the deployment and work of each PCSO.
• With regard to paragraph 7, it was agreed that the identified point of contact should be the LAP Manager and that the frequency of contact should be decided locally.
• It was noted that it was the Police Authorities responsibility to determine how the PCSO’s were to be deployed and that there should be flexibility to move PCSO’s between LAP’s at times of urgent policing need.
• Deploying the PCSO’s on a LAP basis would enable the Town and Parish Councils to be involved in the process and would prevent the Police Authority from depleting their resources while at the same time continuing to charge the Borough Council for the 16.
• With regard to the duties highlighted in appendix B, the Portfolio Holder agreed to remove bullet points 7 and 10 and agreed to give further consideration to the removal of bullet point 11.

Finally the Portfolio Holder agreed to take into consideration all that was said by the Committee, however she highlighted that she would also need to consider Local Service Delivery and the reconfiguration of the LAP’s.

RESOLVED

That the Portfolio Holder give consideration to comments and recommendations highlighted above.