Agenda item

(Safer, Greener & Transport Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-037-2017/18).

(1)        That further discussion be undertaken with Essex Police to fully determine the options and implications of the Council funding two Police Officers as part of a hybrid model of operation to improve levels of policing in the District;

(2)        That, as a short term measure, Parkguard security company be appointed to provide regular uniformed patrolling of the District during the period 2 January 2018 to March 31 2018, subject to further review, and that Sections 5 and 10 of the Council’s Procurement Rules be waived accordingly;

(3)        That a District Development Fund supplementary estimate in the sum of £25,000 for 2017/18 be recommended to the Council for approval to cover the costs of the appointment of Parkguard security company; and

(4)        That appropriate budget provision be made for the commissioning of a service on a longer-term basis from 2018/19.

The Portfolio Holder for Safer, Greener & Transport introduced a report on a proposal for increased Policing or a uniformed presence in the District.

The Portfolio Holder stated that, over the last 18 months, the Council had seen a significant increase in the number of youth nuisance incidents in the District and cases of general anti-social behaviour (ASB) amounting to 10% more than in the previous year. In addition, the level of recorded crime and violence had increased. It appeared that this had been as a result of the reduction in Essex Police resources from 2015/16, which had seen the number of Community Police Officers in the Epping Forest District reduced by about 50%; as well as the sale of Waltham Abbey police station and the proposed sale of Epping and Ongar police stations, along with the closure of custody and front office facilities at Loughton Police Station.

The Portfolio Holder reported that recent examples of the escalation in serious youth nuisance and ASB problems included incidents over Halloween in Waltham Abbey and Epping, where large groups of young people had behaved in intimidating and threatening ways, which had led to the Council’s Community Safety Team using a range of powers including closure orders, injunctions and Community Protection Notices (CPNs). Although these particular issues had been addressed very well by the Council’s Community Safety Team, working closely with the Community Policing Team, there was a real problem across the whole of the District and this had caused unrest and concern amongst many of the District’s communities.

The Portfolio Holder and the Leader of Council had requested that potential options to address these ongoing issues in the District be investigated and the following potential options had been identified:

            (i)         to commission a private security company who were accredited by the             local Police Service under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme      (CSAS) (Uniformed Organisation) to undertake regular patrolling and targeted          work;

            (ii)        to pay for a number of additional Police Officers for the District, who             would be employed by Essex Police, but tasked through the Council’s             Community Safety Team in conjunction with the local Police Inspector; and

            (iii)       a hybrid of options (i) & (ii) above, plus provision of a range of youth             engagement work.

The Cabinet was requested to agree that further discussions be undertaken with Essex Police to determine the implications of the Council funding additional Police Officers for the District, and that as a short term measure Parkguard security company be engaged to provide regular, uniformed patrolling of the District during January, February and March 2018. This would require the Council to agree a supplementary estimate from the District Development Fund for £25,000 and further budgetary provision to be made for 2018/19.

The Cabinet generally supported the proposed measures, and although it was accepted that this was not an ideal solution, it was accepted that something had to be done to counter the problems currently being experienced. It was highlighted that Parkguard, when employed at Limes Farm in Chigwell, had not only patrolled the streets but had also supported the local youth. They had also provided reassurance to residents when they had patrolled the streets of Waltham Abbey. The temporary employment of Parkguard would also give Officers further time to discuss longer-term measures with Essex Police. There was clearly a demand for such measures throughout the District, and residents might even be happy to pay a little extra Council Tax for the increased peace of mind.

There were some concerns expressed that Essex Police would reduce its own provision of resources throughout the District if the Council started to fund additional Policing, and that the Council could be inadvertently committing itself to the long-term funding of Policing within the District. It was also pointed out that the level of engagement between Youth Officers at Essex County Council and young people had reduced in recent years. The Portfolio Holder explained that the problem was there had been a lack of funding for youth projects by Essex County Council. The Portfolio Holder also acknowledged that Parkguard had limited enforcement powers, but they were excellent at engaging with the public to prevent problems escalating. It was also highlighted that there was a lack of regular Police patrolling in the modern era.

The Assistant Director of Communities (Community Services & Safety) agreed that the use of Parkguard within the District would be a deterrent rather than an enforcement measure. Parkguard had provided an excellent Youth engagement service for Broxbourne Borough Council for the last 11 years, through building a rapport with young people, and were also happy to advise residents on anti-burglary measures which the Police did not have the resources to do. And although the Council could not use Parkguard to directly engage with and in Schools, there were other methods of engaging with Secondary School children such as the very successful Crucial Crew and Reality Roadshow initiatives.

The Portfolio Holder emphasised that Parkguard would not be a Council Police force, but would bolster the available Police resources and the excellent work being performed by the Council’s Community Safety Team. The Leader added that the Council did need to take action to counter the impact from anti-social behaviour; there were problems on the High Streets and Estates throughout the District and the Council needed to plan for the future. If the Council was paying for these additional measures then it would be a service for the Epping Forest District.

Decision:

(1)        That further discussion be undertaken with Essex Police to fully determine the options and implications of the Council funding Police Officers as part of a hybrid model of operation to improve levels of policing in the District;

(2)        That, as a short term measure, Parkguard security company be appointed to provide regular uniformed patrolling of the District during the period 2 January 2018 to March 31 2018, subject to further review, and that Sections 5 and 10 of the Council’s Procurement Rules be waived accordingly;

(3)        That a District Development Fund supplementary estimate in the sum of £25,000 for 2017/18 be recommended to the Council for approval to cover the costs for the appointment of Parkguard security company; and

(4)        That appropriate budget provision be made for the commissioning of a service on a longer-term basis from 2018/19.

Reasons for Decision:

With an evident lack of visible policing within local communities in the District, groups of young people and other adult individuals were gaining confidence in their ability to disrupt communities, intimidate other local residents and commit crime. It was recognised that these problems would continue to escalate unless action was taken to engage with perpetrators and challenge anti-social behaviour with the ability to impose enforcement sanctions when necessary.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To do nothing, or for the Council to lobby the Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner to provide additional policing from funds accumulated through the sale of Police Stations in the Epping Forest District.