Agenda and draft minutes

GS stood as chair for this meeting as RA was unwell. RA attended the meeting remotely, as an observer.

The minutes of the previous meeting were not discussed as this was a meeting held in public, and the previous minutes were from a closed meeting.

Report of the Executive Director of Community and Children’s Services.

A Progress and Delivery ASB report had been included in the papers for information. 

IH explained that the ASB Delivery Group had been a success and had brought together several teams (Police Authority Board, Community Safety Team, Environment Team, CoL Police) in tactical coordination.

IH explained that there was a detailed action plan within the report, as well information around improved communications, case reviews, cluster panels and cycle teams.

The ASB working group were looking into the adoption of CSAS powers. A paper on CSAS Powers had gone through the committee cycle and would allow for CoLC Contractors (currently Parkguard) to take more of an active role in dealing with ASB in partnership with the Police.

IH said that they had been able to secure additional funding for the cleansing service to ensure better staffing in terms of dealing with the aftermath of some ASB issues.

The environment team were able to permanently introduce “Urilifts” over the Christmas period.

IH said that Operation Reframe had been successful in terms of raising awareness and delivering real benefits on the ground.

Members had given some comments on the ASB Policy draft, and additional work needed to be done. This would be discussed further under VC’s AOB item.

IH explained that they were looking to broaden some of the data they had received from the police and embed it within the work of the ASB sub-group, to allow support for tactical engagement and operation on the ground.

A question was raised regarding the difference between ASB and inconsiderate behaviour. IH explained that this was something that needed to be explored in more detail through the ASB policy.

GS raised a question regarding ASB actions 5 and 8 (page 3, appendix 1). He asked whether they would be carried over into

Report of the Head of Service, Hackney & City Probation.

SS explained that the Reducing Reoffending delivery group were looking into gaining a better understanding of the individuals they were working with. They were considering ways in which they could collaborate with services across, and beyond the City. 

Services in Bishopsgate Police Station were being considered, and the delivery group were looking into ways in which certain offenders could be redirected for support with drugs, alcohol, and other specific needs.

SS said that there were six individuals going through the ‘Divert’ Programme. Work was being done to monitor the impact / outcomes of this programme.

MAPPA processes were a key element for the Reducing Reoffending Group. Professionals meetings were being introduced for level 1 cases. These meetings were set up to tackle serious violence, and its impact within the City.

SS planned to provide an update on out of court disposals at the next SCPSB.

SS said that the delivery group were working on ensuring substance misuse support was carried over to offenders’ home boroughs.

OUTCOME: Update noted.

Report of the Town Clerk.

CS explained that in 2022, legislation had been introduced which required every local authority to produce a strategy for reducing serious violence.

The Serious Violence Subgroup had produced a Serious Violence Strategy alongside additional public sector partners.

The strategy was approved by the Police Authority Board in December 2023, and it was cleared by the Police Senior Leadership Team in January 2024. All were in agreement of the publication of this strategy. CS said that it would have to be sent to the Home Office and published online.

A Strategic Needs Assessment had taken place. This would have to be shared with the Home Office, but it was not mandatory for the CoL to publish it online. CS said the SCPSB could decide whether they ought to publish this document online.

CS said there were no significant changes to the current approach. 3 priorities were set out: violence linked to the NTE, a focus on Sexual and Domestic Violence, and a focus on identifying/mitigating long-term risks.

RR said it was important to ensure that the strategic approach was driven through governance.

JF noted the importance of involving the City’s workers in the strategy. CS said that community engagement was certainly a priority going forward. He explained that this would improve with the new CoL surveying platform. He said that there had been some (but not enough) engagement with businesses and workers in the City. 

DR said that the City of London looked very different to the rest of the country, and CS had done well to tailor the strategy to the City’s unique character. 

OUTCOME: The Safer City Partnership Strategy Board approved the Serious Violence Strategy.

Report of the Executive Director of Community and Children’s Services.

VAWG, Vulnerability, Hate Crime (VC):

VC gave a brief recap of the work that had been done in the past year. Further information was detailed in the papers circulated prior to the meeting.

Strategies were being refreshed for 2024. 

RR raised a question around Hate Crime in relation to the current climate in the Middle East and how it impacted those living and working in the City.

VC said that Hate Crime was being monitored – there had been a slight increase for the year in total.

OUTCOME: Update noted.

City of London Police Neighbourhood Strategy (SD):

SD spoke through her slides which added some context to the Neighbourhood and Policing Engagement Strategy.

Deputy Henry Pollard (member in attendance) asked to know the officer in charge of Neighbourhood Policing for the Dowgate Ward. He also asked whether there was a website where constituents could access statistics for their ward.

SD explained that work was being done to roll out a homepage where statistics were easily accessible, but this was taking longer than expected. She said that up-to-date contacts were available on the Neighbourhood Policing pages.

OUTCOME: Update noted.

City of London Police to be heard.

RR explained that CF’s presentation (given at the start of the meetings) had provided a depth of information about CoLP Data. So far, they had been unable to obtain such detailed data and analysis from other partners within the SCP due to capacity issues.

The data existed within some pockets, for example: the Strategic Needs Assessment on Serious Violence, work on suicide prevention and work on Vision Zero.

RR said that before May, he would come back to the Chair with details on how to provide more comprehensive data, perhaps through a refresh of the last Comprehensive Assessment (from 2022). RR said he was interested in the views of other partners as to whether they felt the previous Comprehensive Assessment was fully fledged enough.

It was clear that discussions about community engagement would need to be had – this crossed over with SC’s item (4.0.) on Future Community Engagement.

DR and PH offered the support of the Crime Prevention Association and City BIDS/Primera.

RRa explained that her department offered a front-facing business engagement remit. They were in regular communication with SMEs, top 250 businesses, and BIDS.

Claire Flinter gave a presentation on the CoLP Performance Review at the start of the meeting. Her slides were circulated to attendees prior to the meeting.

OUTCOME: Update noted.

Executive Director of Community and Children’s Services to be heard.

SC explained that a piece of work would need to be done in order to engage communities and inform the priorities of the partnership. He said it was important to identify certain needs within the City sphere – some areas were high impact despite smaller numbers.

SC warned of the risk of over-engaging. He suggested that communities wanted to see more action rather than conversation. He was keen to draw on existing conversations e.g., Neighbourhood Policing and Police Cluster Meetings.

SC suggested a session with elected Members and partners around the City to bring a sense of what issues were occurring. SC and RR were working on a plan to bring together engagement. In doing so, they could look into who was not being spoken to.

By considering existing outreach capacity, the CoL and Police would be in a better position for appropriately allocating resources and allowing for transparency in instances where resources were not available.

JF said it was important to pick up on the voices of Children and Young People as a specific engagement theme. SC said there were youth services that ran clubs, who could provide information on the best way to engage with the youth.

OUTCOME: Update noted.

Presentation by Primera.

PH explained that Primera were essentially the managing agents of the Business Improvement Districts in London.

He explained that there were 5 City Bids running, and a further Bid along the riverside. There had been a huge amount of support from Businesses for the Bids so far.

There was a new ‘Safer Paths’ Initiative in action. There was an opportunity to bring different Bids together in the interest of the prevention of crime.

PH explained that they wanted to continue with the investment in the Taxi Marshalling Scheme. They were happy to work with anyone around the table with any collaborative schemes.

RR asked how far up on the agenda safety was in terms of the governance of the Bids. PH said that safety tended to be high on the agenda across all governance boards. Objectives were driven by the Business community, who prioritised safety and security.

Bid safety priorities tended to vary dependent on the demographics local to the bid area. Bids were seen as valuable in adding intelligence and hyper local security needs.

VC suggested that there could perhaps be a presentation on the Safer Paths initiative at the next meeting.

OUTCOME: Update noted.

Report of the Executive Director for Community and Children’s Services.

SC said that the Terms of Reference and the way in which POCA funding was allocated/assessed had been reviewed. The work around POCA funding was firmly aligned to the priorities of the SCP.

SC explained that they were currently sat on POCA funds circa £310,000. £110,00 had been allocated in 2023.

He said that an expression of interest for Home Office Funding had been put forward for the expansion of Community Patrolling. They had received a reduced allocation from the previous year which had triggered an interest to make up that amount elsewhere.

CS explained that there had been a successful bid to the Home Office from the Safer Streets Fund. There was an agreement in principle with the Home Office that the additional money from the Safer Streets Fund could be used to make up for the loss in funding for Community Patrolling.

SC said that next year, they would have £1 million of Grip funding from the Home Office. This would allow for a uniformed presence to tackle Serious Violence and ASB.

Another £500,000 would be allocated for Immediate Justice Initiatives. A conversation would be had with the CoLP about how this would be deployed. 

DR said that there was still some streamlining required for the POCA funding process. He asked for a clear definition of a ‘year’ in terms of POCA funding, whether this was fiscal, calendar, or a year from the date of application.

SC said that if the board could demonstrate that they were allocating money wisely, it could help make the case for a request for further resources.

OUTCOME: POCA Funding Request Withdrawn.

Report of City of London Crime Prevention Association (CoLCPA).

DR explained that the Taxi Marshalling Scheme had begun on 2^nd November. Due to demand, there had been a slight variation in timing (22:00 – 2:00 instead of 10:00 – 1:00).

This scheme was a part of 6 initiatives running to prevent VAWG. They had facilitated 3736 journeys and transported 6769 passengers. 52% of these passengers were female and 33% were lone females.

The report had been submitted for information, but also for a request for continuation of funding. The remaining £26,000 of funding would take the scheme through to July 2024. The intention was to perhaps extend the scheme to Fenchurch Street also.

RA stated that the CoLP were very supportive of the continuation of the scheme.

JF said that she was very supportive. She noted that data around people with disabilities was not being captured. She also suggested that gender was not being fully captured.

DR said that the next objective would be to pronounce the work being done to a wider audience. He acknowledged that there could be a spike in reporting of sexual violence/assault with the

growing success of the scheme, but the CoL Police/Mayor of London were prepared for that.

OUTCOME: The Safer City Partnership Strategy Board approved the continuation of the Taxi Marshalling Scheme.

VC explained that the recording of the meeting would be uploaded to YouTube. Viewers could send any questions to the Safer City inbox and would be responded to in writing.

JF suggested that since the link did not work, another Public Meeting ought to be held. SC agreed that another meeting ought to be held in public.

SC suggested that it could be valuable to have a meeting with public participation in the future. 

It was noted that the YouTube live stream was not working during the public meeting. The meeting was recorded from around 5 minutes in via Teams. The meeting would be uploaded to YouTube as soon as the recording was ready.

VC explained that the ASB Policy had gone to Community & Children’s Services Committee. There had been some comments and requests in response to the policy from members.

The policy had previously been approved by the Safer City Partnership, but they wanted to make some additions and amendments. The public would like clearer definitions around ASB.