Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point in the meeting the Cabinet Member was invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests he might have in the business on the agenda.  None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting held on 6 September 2011.

RESOLVED:       That the minutes of the meeting of the Crime and Community Safety Decision Session held on 6 September 2011 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

Councillor Healey had stated that he was unable to be present to speak at the meeting but had submitted written comments in respect of agenda items 4 and 5.  These comments are included as an annex to the agenda papers.  The responses from the Cabinet Member are detailed under the specific items.

This report presents information on the current years Target Hardening Fund allocations and proposes recommendations on ways to improve the accessibility and awareness of the fund for future years.

RESOLVED:       (i)      That the information on the allocation of the

2011-2012 Target Hardening Fund be noted.

(ii)      That Option 3, as outlined in paragraph 11 of the report, be approved to publicise the scheme wider to residents and organisations active in the wards so that they can make suggestions to the relevant ward committee for funding allocations.

(iii)     That the process be reviewed after a year. 

REASONS:         (i)      For information.

(ii)      To ensure that the accessibility and awareness of the Target Hardening Fund is improved in a timely fashion for the financial year 2012/2013.  Ensuring that access to the fund is fair and equitable and in this way improving the quality and diversity of applications to the fund.

(iii)     To ensure that the allocation process works effectively.

The Cabinet Member considered a report that presented information on the current year’s Target Hardening Fund allocations, as detailed in Annex 1 of the report.  The report also contained recommendations on ways to improve the accessibility and awareness of the fund for future years.

The Cabinet Member was advised of the following correction to Annex 1 of the report:  Scheme reference TH-11-08 – the allocation to Lindsey Avenue CCTV should read “£2,500”.

The Cabinet Member considered the following options:

Option 1 –  retain the current level of promotion of the fund

                   (detailed in paragraph 9 of the report), which is

 restricted to ward committees and key stakeholders working with them, Safer York

                   Partnership and North Yorkshire Police. 

          Option 2 –  As option 1 and in addition promote the fund

                             internally via the council’s intranet to ensure a

                             joined up approach across the authority.

          Option 3 –  As option 2 and in addition promote the fund

                             publicly so that residents and organisations

                             active in the wards can make suggestions to the

                             relevant ward committee for funding applications.

The Cabinet Member stated that, although it was important that the Council and the Safer York Partnership’s priorities were reflected in the allocation of funding, he would nevertheless welcome increased transparency in the process. 

In response to Councillor’s Healey’s suggestion that the funds be split across the Ward Committees, the Cabinet Member stated that he did not support this suggestion.  He drew attention to the limited funding that was available and stated that it was important that it was not diluted to an extent that allocations could not fund worthwhile projects.  It was also important that the schemes reflected targets that had been set in respect of crime reduction.

The Cabinet Member stated that he was mindful that, by approving the broader approach detailed in Option 3, the scheme may become more oversubscribed which may result in residents’ aspirations not being met.  For this reason he suggested that officers ascertain whether there were opportunities to obtain additional funding for future allocations.  He stated that it was also important that the process was reviewed in a year’s time.

Officers were thanked for their work in administering the allocations.

RESOLVED:       (i)      That the information on the allocation of the

2011-2012 Target Hardening Fund be noted.

(ii)      That Option 3, as outlined in paragraph 11 of the report, be approved to publicise the scheme wider to residents and organisations active in the wards so that they can make suggestions to the relevant ward committee for funding allocations.

(iii)     That the process be reviewed after a year. 

REASONS:         (i)      For information.

(ii)      To ensure that the accessibility and awareness of the Target Hardening Fund is improved in a timely fashion for the financial year 2012/2013.  Ensuring that access to the fund is fair and equitable and in this way improving the quality and diversity of applications to the fund.

(iii)     To ensure that the allocation process works effectively.

This report sets out proposals for the development of a Crime Summit for the City of York to be held on an annual basis from 2012 onwards.

RESOLVED:       That Option 2 – to host an annual Crime Summit in the spring of each year aimed at attracting all age groups and involving a range of stakeholders engaged in work to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour within York, be approved.

REASON:            To ensure the best opportunity to gain maximum attendance and ensure that residents’ priorities and concerns feature within the future delivery plans of the community safety partnership.  It also demonstrates recognition of the value of localism in determining community safety service provision.

The Cabinet Member considered a report that set out proposals for the development of a Crime Summit for the City of York to be held on an annual basis from 2012 onwards.

Officers explained that York and North Yorkshire Community Safety Partnerships were currently undertaking their annual Joint Strategic Intelligence Assessments in order to redefine the community safety plans for 2012-13.  It would therefore be timely to link this process with a crime summit to ensure that action plans aligned to the Community Safety Plan demonstrated a balance between meeting the priority issues identified directly by communities as well as working toward addressing the high level priorities identified through multi-agency data analysis.

The Cabinet Member was asked to consider the following options:

Option 1 – Host a one day market in Parliament Street in the

                  format of previous Face the Public events.

          Option 2 – Host an event on a Saturday aimed at attracting

                            all age groups and involving a range of

                            stakeholders engaged in work to reduce crime

                            and anti-social behaviour within York.

Referring to Councillor Healey’s suggestion that smaller local events should be held at the major supermarkets rather than holding an event in Parliament Street, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that events held in Parliament Street may engage with a high number of tourists and may not reflect the views of residents.  Nevertheless, a commitment had been made to host a focussed and high profile event, and it was important that this took place.   Such an event would not preclude other more local activities also being arranged.

RESOLVED:       That Option 2 – to host an annual Crime Summit in the spring of each year aimed at attracting all age groups and involving a range of stakeholders engaged in work to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour within York, be approved.

REASON:            To ensure the best opportunity to gain maximum attendance and ensure that residents’ priorities and concerns feature within the future delivery plans of the community safety partnership.  It also demonstrates recognition of the value of localism in determining community safety service provision.