Agenda and minutes

(Head of Research and Democratic Services)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Panel noted that Councillor Mrs Whitehouse would be substituting for Councillor Mrs Haigh.

(Head of Research and Democratic Services). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

Pursuant to the Council’s Code of Member Conduct, Councillor M Cohen declared a general personal interest by virtue of being a Criminal Defence Solicitor. He declared that his interest was not prejudicial and he would remain in the meeting.

To note the minutes from the last meeting – 27 June 2006.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2006 was agreed as a correct record.

The draft Terms of Reference which were discussed at the last meeting are attached. These have been formally approved by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Also attached is a draft work programme for information.

The Terms of Reference and Work Programme were noted and agreed.

The Panel at their last meeting requested that representatives from the Police be invited to this meeting. To this end the Panel is to receive Chief Superintendent Andy Adams, Superintendent Graham Carey and Chief Inspector John Hill who will attend the meeting as representatives of the Police as a responsible authority under the Crime and Disorder Act, to seek their views on what the Council could or should do to help it achieve its objectives and understand the interaction between the partners now and what, if anything, we could do to make things better in the future.

The meeting received a presentation (copy attached) from Chief Superintendent Andy Adams (who is the Divisional Commander for the Western Division and who also chairs the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP)) and Superintendent Graham Carey (the Neighbourhood and Partnership Superintendent). They were attending the meeting as representatives of the Police as a responsible authority.

The Chief Superintendent showed the meeting a diagrammatic representation of the relationship between the various LSP panels and indicated that Epping Forest was in a good position to scrutinise the CDRP, with EFDC having representatives in many of the sub panels looking at various aspects of crime and community safety in this area. He also went through the performance figures of the police and compared them with the neighbouring police districts. At present Epping Forest is in the mid range of crimes per 1000 residents. The meeting noted that the CDRP group monitored these figures at each of their meetings; and that EFDC was in a difficult geographical position as it bordered 10 other CDRPs, 4 of which were Metropolitan Police areas; no other CDRP is in this predicament. There are also a lot of routes into EFDC, London Underground, mainline trains, M25 and M11 and A roads, if the Police could crack down on these routes in they could start to make a difference, i.e. with the use of CCTV and car number plate recognition systems.  The National Intelligence Model will be used for the delivery for the strategic assessment for the partnership, along with six-monthly strategic assessments and rolling three-year community safety plans. It was noted that detailed guidance was still awaited on the Police and Justice Bill from the government. The CDRPs were to report to their communities as there was no longer a requirement for an annual report to the Home Secretary.

It was noted that the Overview and Scrutiny role is already quite well established in EFDC, the LSP board is already in existence and that the CDRP will weave into an already established local structure. The Chief Superintendent indicated that the challenge for the Panel was to work out details on how EFDC could influence the CDRP structure. Councillors will hold a key role under the new system, under the ‘call for action’. Members of the public will be able to approach their ward members with specific complaints, the members will then have to say what they are going to do about it and who they would tell, e.g. the Police or the County or District Council etc. Problems reported into a CDRP can be reported to the most appropriate partner for a solution.

Asked how the Police monitors reported cases that need following up, the Chief Superintendent replied that requests and actions are minuted at meetings, are then followed through and any subsequent results are reported back to the next meeting.

The Chairman noted that the 12-month comparator crime figures are moving parallel to, if not away from the target, why? The Chief Superintendent replied that the long-term  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Panel is to receive representatives from the Fire and Rescue Services who will attend the meeting as a responsible authority under the Crime and Disorder Act, to seek their views on what the Council could or should do to help it achieve its objectives and understand the interaction between the partners now and what, if anything, we could do to make things better in the future.

The Fire and Rescue Services were not available to attend this meeting.

None raised.

To be agreed.

Officers are to liaise with Chairman with a date for the next meeting.