The Head of Community and Safety Services introduced the report to the Committee, which included an overview of performance and activity by the Safer Peterborough Partnership and its constituent responsible and cooperating authorities in relation to priority 2 of the 2014 -17 Safer Peterborough Partnership Plan – Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour.
Priority 2 within the Safer Peterborough Partnership Plan contained two separate themes:
1. Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour
2. Road Safety
Whilst the report, and in particular the appended performance report, evidenced performance and activity in relation to both themes, its main focus was on anti-social behaviour.
The Committee was asked to note the content of the report including the appended extract from the most recently available Safer Peterborough Partnership Board Performance Report.
The Committee was also asked in its capacity of statutory Crime and Disorder Committee as set out in section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 and as detailed in part 3, section 4.2 of the Council Constitution, to apply appropriate scrutiny to the content of the report.
Observations and questions were raised around the following areas:
· Members commented that they were still very concerned that Antisocial Behaviour was not being properly recorded. The Head of Community and Safety Services advised the Committee that how antisocial behaviour was recorded was dependant on what type of activity was taking place. If antisocial behaviour was being reported through the ‘My Peterborough’ App then it would be recorded as a Quality of Life issue and appear in these statistics. Personal anti-social behaviour reports were recorded separately by the police and the local authority. Antisocial behaviour reported to the police which amounted to a recordable criminal offence was recorded as a crime and would show up in the crime statistics rather than the antisocial behaviour statistics. All antisocial behaviour reported was recorded.
· Members were concerned that the antisocial behaviour figures which were produced from the police panel, did not reflect reality and queried if all antisocial behaviour reported to AMEY was being reported and included in the statistics. Members were informed that AMEY reported antisocial behaviour through the Quality of Life reporting System.
· Members referred to page 28 of the report and queried why, within the performance narratives, there was hardly any change in the level of reported antisocial behaviour.Members were advised that the blue bars of the graph indicated the total number of reported antisocial behaviour incidents to the police and the local authority each month and fluctuated according to seasonal trends. The red line across the graph indicated that the level of antisocial behaviour reports as measured by a rolling 12 month rate was remaining static.
· Members commented that it was impossible to get through to anyone to report antisocial behaviour at weekends, even the My Peterborough App stopped working leaving it impossible for residents to report any antisocial behaviour, which then led them to give up reporting it. Members were informed that delays in answering 101 were acknowledged and steps were being taken to address this. Members were further informed that officers were not aware of any other reported difficulties using the My Peterborough app at weekends but this would be investigated.
· Members queried whether victim satisfaction was recorded. Members were informed that victims were surveyed and tracked through the system, then measured and reported on.
· Members commented that they would have preferred the report to have contained more historic data for them to make comparisons with.
· Members commented that the interagency relationship between the police and the Local Authority was good but not with the ward Councillors. Councillors needed to know what was happening in their wards. The issue was that there was no longer a local officer available. Members were advised that the Inspector and Local Sergeants where the main contacts now. Police Community Support Officer needed to be used more efficiently.
The Committee noted the report and requested that more historic data was presented at future meetings.