Meeting:                    Safer York Partnership Board meeting

Date and Time:       Monday 8th March 2021

Location:                  via Teams

Chair:                       Lindsey Butterfield







Alison Semmence ASe

Chief Exec CVS

Amber White AW

Community Safety Hub

Andrew Blades AB

North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue

Angela Stabeler ASt

Department of Work & Pensions

Cllr Denise Craghill DC

City of York Council

Jane Mowat JM

Community Safety Hub / Safer York Partnership

Leigh Bell LBe

City of York Council Public Health

Louise Johnson /Simon Godley SG

National Probation Service

Neil Ferris NF

Director of Economy and Place CYC

Nicole Hutchinson NH

Representing Police & Crime Commissioner

Paul Morrison PM

Community Safety Hub

Rachel Harvey RH

Make It York

Sara Orton SO

City of York Council Youth Justice Service

Superintendent Lindsey Butterfield LB

North Yorkshire Police York & Selby Commander

Tanya Lyon TL

Community Safety Hub





Amanda Hatton AH

Director Children, Education & Communities CYC

Andrew Lowson

Executive Director York BID

Cllr Darryl Smalley

City of York Council

Melanie Liley

York Teaching Hospital Foundation Trust

Michael Jones

Assistant Director Housing & Community Safety

Michelle Carrington

Vale of York CCG

Odette Robson

NYCC Head of Safer Communities

Sandra Chatters

Probation CRC

Sharon Stoltz

City of York Council Director Public Health

Tracey Carter

Interim Director Regeneration & Asset Mgmt


Items and Decisions:





LB welcomed attendees to her first meeting as Chair.  Introductions were made and representations noted.  The Partnership had last met in September with a vote having taken place to make the change to twice yearly meetings.  The minutes of the September meeting were agreed as a true record.  The only Matter Arising was an email to the full membership regarding the election of the new Chair which had been completed



Future of Safer York Partnership

            i) Terms of Reference

            ii) Membership


LB confirmed that all had been sent the Terms of Reference (which included Membership details) via email in advance of the meeting.  LB wanted to look at the pertinent points, particularly the roadmap out of lockdown and felt that Safer York Partnership’s strategic mission should be about helping the York community to feel safe.  LB opened the floor for discussion.  NH had provided comments via email which had been incorporated.  No amendments were requested.


With regard to Membership JM wanted to highlight that the involvement of the safeguarding partnerships were missing which, particularly with the changes for local authorities being introduced by the Domestic Abuse Bill, needed addressing.  LB to write to the respective Chairs.  ASe confirmed that specialists could be brought in (such as from a charity) when their expertise would be helpful.  The TOR and Membership were approved by the Board.




















Community Safety Strategy Refresh


JM advised that the Strategy was a three year document covering 2020-23 however in an effort to keep it as a live document, it was reviewed annually.  JM had been through the document and added in red areas where change was needed (this revised version had been circulated in advance of the meeting).  Recovering from the pandemic would bring its own challenges.


City Centre Crime and Anti-social Behaviour

  • To ensure that Community Safety is considered in plans to re-open the City Centre following restrictions implemented as part of the response to COVID-19.


Counter Terrorism: Protect, Prepare, Prevent

  • Ensure that York is prepared to meet the requirements of the Protect Duty and in particular has plans in place to mitigate risk in relation to Publicly Accessible Locations

JM noted that the Protect duty had gone out for consultation on 25th February (for an unusually long 18 weeks which it was felt reflected the importance of the subject).  It was likely that a duty would be put in place for those managing publicly accessible spaces (parks, squares, etc.) which could be owned by the council or privately.  It was expected that lessons learned from the Manchester arena attack would be included in changes as well as a tightening of arrangements for events.  CTTG were working on this to be ready to support any changes needed. 


Domestic Abuse

  • Ensure that York is able to meet the requirements of the Domestic Abuse Bill and in particular the duty to be placed on the Local Authority

High Risk Anti-social Behaviour

No changes.


Serious Organised Crime: County Lines, Modern Slavery, Exploitation

No changes.


Comments were invited from the Board.  NH noted the increased (mostly adult) ASB when lockdown restrictions had previously been eased and wondered if something needed to be added for this refresh.  JM advised that it was mentioned in the City Centre section but agreed that maybe something wider was needed (noting an issue with youths over the weekend).  JM was in close contact with both NPT Inspectors. 


NF would like performance management to be considered so that by the next meeting there was a measure that could be used for all partners to establish if they were meeting the outcomes they had hoped for.  By knowing what ‘good’ was, it could be confirmed if the Board was performing satisfactorily.  JM described lengthy discussions on this topic but without a solution presenting itself.  Ian Cunningham had introduced a score card (for crime figures) but the figures did not match up with the priorities for the community so resulted in fudging.  JM noted that figures for violent crime included everything from ABH to verbal abuse. 


NF agreed that day to day operational noise was not the way to measure performance but rather organisational performance needed to be measured.  NF noted LB’s comment about making the community feel safe and asked how this could be measured.  JM and LB to get together to consider the problem.  LB noted that a piece of work to target drug dealers would lead to arrests increasing the figures – just another way that the figures could be misleading.


ASe asked about hate crime and it was agreed that this needed updating as there were now groups working on this that did not exist when the Strategy was written.  JM would add some wording under ASB (as this was where the information came into the hub).  LB noted that this was a good example of why the Strategy needed to be refreshed.
































































Bi annual Report for the Policy & Scrutiny Committee


JM advised that the report was deliberately bland as it went into the public domain and lines had previously been taken out of context and caused issues.  The preceding six months had continued to be strange with businesses open, partially closed then closed.  Proactive work had continued particularly joint working with police to ensure that businesses and individuals acted responsibly. 


Four COVID marshals were employed via Work With York followed by a further two.  These have been well received.  They were not enforcement officers but friendly ambassadors that encouraged wearing of masks, maintaining of social distancing etc.  They had worked in all areas of the City not just the city centre.


There had been significant concerns about revellers gathering on New Year’s Eve and work was done jointly with police, the council and the Minster.  This included the bells being silenced and the clock not chiming.  That there were no problems with crowds was a great achievement.


The Counter Terrorism Task Group were working on the Protect Duty and a pilot area had been established (Fossgate & Castlegate Open Spaces Pilot) as lots of café licences had been granted in this area with a resulting increased use of the street space for hospitality.  The Home Office were keen to use this as an example of good practice.  JM was part of a working group to look at the Duty and it was clear that most authorities were struggling.  It felt like York was ahead of the game due to the work of the CTTG, various joint projects with NYP and other agencies including Servator and engagement from the business community.


A close eye was being kept on domestic abuse figures during the pandemic with initially weekly then fortnightly tactical meetings Chaired by the Chief Inspector of safeguarding from Police.  Extra funding had been sourced to keep resources at the level needed.  Figures were regularly circulated and showed that changes could be observed that matched the dates that restrictions changed.  When the DA Bill was passed (due April) there would be pots of money available to use for housing issues (both perpetrator and victim).  There was a lot of cross boarder working for DA but arrangements after the Bill would have to change more in North Yorkshire as the duty fell to the County not the Districts.  Complications such as housing being run by the Districts but other functions by the County would have to be worked out.  A paper had been submitted to AH for the Directorate Management Team (for Adult Social Care to use £50,000 to pay for a consultant to consider how Domestic Abuse was tackled across the whole council-providing data, information on safeguarding functions, etc.).  This paper would then move on to CMT.


High risk anti-social behaviour was the bread and butter of the Community Safety Hub and every effort had been made to keep services running as close to normal as possible during the pandemic.  This was made more difficult by enforcement functions not having the Courts available to them so alternatives had to be sought.  JM felt if had been a positive thing with early interventions and holistic approaches seeing some good successes.  Figures included in the report showed steady delivery by Neighbourhood Enforcement as well as some case studies of enforcement action and alternative solutions.  The Serious Organised Crime Board and Disruption Panel had continued to meet and work tended to be force wide.  Intel meetings were fortnightly with a focus on County Lines and addresses/individuals of significant concern.  The organisations normally proactive within the Modern Slavery Partnership had been bogged down dealing with COVID but this would change as restrictions were lifted.


LB thanked JM for the comprehensive update and the picture it painted of how complex the preceding 12 months had been.  It also highlighted the cross-over between the council and other agencies.  NF was keen to fulfil the Protect Duty but recognised that a delicate and complex balance needed to be struck between the needs of the economy, public health, the use of open spaces, and many other areas.  The residents of York needed a thriving economy and this was a balance that the Council were used to dealing with.  NF asked agencies to use the council, as the democratically elected body, to help them strike that balance.  NF noted central government being led by science before a more complex balanced approach was taken.


NH also found the report comprehensive, showing the breadth of what was being dealt with.  NH asked about the COVID marshal feedback question(s) being added as an appendix but JM confirmed it was only one question.  DC agreed that the report was comprehensive but asked that it be made clearer that work was taking place across the whole City.  It was agreed that it was implied but JM would make it clearer.












































































Road out of Lockdown

LB noted that we had entered step 1a with schools reopening and individuals being able to socialise with an individual from another household and that the restrictions would slowly be lifted until (approximately) 21st June when they would all end.  LB echoed NF’s comment about balance and that although it would be fantastic to get back to normal it needed to be recognised that this would bring an increase in crime and ASB and that plans needed to be in place to deal with this.


JM suggested 12th April was a key date as outside hospitality venues could open as well as being mindful of the June date and the need to pre-empt issues.  JM took on board NF’s comment regarding balance but felt that the City would be busy as soon as it was open and recognised the community safety challenges this would bring.  JM felt in a good position as discussions had already started.  Daily COVID meetings were taking place (picking up challenges and patterns such as the effect of the weather), regular coms messages were shared regarding behaving responsibly and work was being done with groups (such as the universities) where issues were possible (e.g. When new students arrived).


JM noted having to learn as things changed in 2020 but being in a better position to second guess the challenges ahead and put robust actions plans together to track the dates as well as plans to tackle likely issues.  A meeting was planned for 11th March to bring agencies together to pool resources, skills and knowledge.  LB welcomed the Roadmap as previously changes were made with little notice which had been very challenging.  LB asked the Board to make contact if they felt that they could contribute but had not been invited to the meeting.


RH described working closely with the City Centre Recovery Group within CYC on their roadmap to open the city.  There were a couple of colleagues she would like invited to the Road Map to Recovery meeting Thursday (RH to send AW their email addresses for them to be added).  NF advised that over the weekend the government had extended café licence changes for another year (currently due to expire Sept 2021) – clarification was being sought regarding off sales as the rules for alcohol were unclear.  Meetings had taken place with a government behavioural unit looking at how changes in behaviour could be manipulated by moving such things as a coffee cart or market stall.


NF anticipated a lot of visitors to the City once restrictions allowed which was likely to cause issues with residents who had become used to having the City to themselves.  With less than normal activity for a long time it would be a culture shock to have a surge of visitors and this was likely to cause tension and complaints.  NF advised that the Bank of England had recorded record savings over the preceding 9 months (of £125 billion) with the previous record being £25 billion.  A splurge was expected over the summer in the domestic environment.  Resident and visitor expectations needed to be managed.



















































Any other business:

NH advised that Purdah would be entered at the end of March in preparation for the OPFCC elections. 


NH had circulated details regarding recently commissioned diversion services that were due to start in early May – these would be shared again with the minutes.  LB felt these services fitted in well with the police desire for diversion support.   LB hoped to be able to provide more details by the September meeting. 


SG advised that the NPS recovery plan was progressing with offices open (seeing priority high risk customers with doorstep or virtual meetings for others).  Unpaid work was recommencing that day for outdoor activities but the accredited programme was still in abeyance.  On 26/6/21 the new unified model for Probation would come into force bringing back NPS and CRC functions into one organisation.








Next meeting: 10am Thursday 23rd September 2021 (calendar invite sent)

Any Agenda items to LB JM or AW please.




Actions Agreed:


Action / Update


Date Issued


LB to write to the Chairs of the Adults and Children’s Safeguarding Boards to encourage them to join the membership




JM/LB to consider performance measures for the Board




JM to add Hate Crime into ASB section of Strategy refresh




JM make it clear work was taking place across the whole City in the Bi-Annual report




RH to send contact emails for colleagues to attend Roadmap to Recovery meeting, AW to invite them


Mar21 √


Criminal Justice Diversionary Support services details to be shared with minutes


Mar 21√