Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from:

• Councillor Ryan Brent, Portsmouth City Council
• Councillor Trevor Cartwright, Fareham Borough Council
• Councillor Adrian Collett, Hart District Council
• Councillor Tonia Craig, Eastleigh Borough Council
• Councillor Ken Muschamp, Rushmoor Borough Council
• Councillor Frank Rust, Additional Local Authority Co-opted Member
• Councillor Leah Turner, Havant Borough Council
• Mr Bob Purkiss, Independent Co-opted Member

To enable Members to declare to the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest they may have in any matter on the agenda for the meeting, where that interest is not already entered in their appointing authority’s register of interests, and any other pecuniary or personal interests in any such matter that Members may wish to consider disclosing.

Members were able to disclose to the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest they may have in any matter on the agenda for the meeting, where that interest is not already entered in their appointing authority’s register of interests, and any other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests in any such matter that Members may wish to disclose.

Councillor Simon Bound declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 5, as he has been engaged with the Community Speedwatch group within his ward

Councillor Steve Clarke declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 5, as he is a Member of the New Milton SpeedWatch group, who shares equipment with the Sway Community SpeedWatch group who are providing evidence to item 5.

Councillor Dave Stewart declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 5, as he has been engaged with the CARS group on the IOW and IOW Council supports their approach.

Councillor Lynne Stagg declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 5, as she is a  Community Speedwatch volunteer.

Councillor Jan Warwick declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 5, as she set up the Hursley Village Speedwatch group and was engaged in a speed spike average speed trial.

To receive any questions or deputations in line with Rule 31 and 31A of the Panel’s Rules of Procedure.

A deputation was received by the Panel on the topic of ‘The impact of Traffic-related crime and nuisance within communities’.

To consider a paper outlining the Police and Crime Commissioner’s response to the recommendations of the Police and Crime Panel on ‘Rural Crime’.

The Police and Crime Commissioner’s (hereafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’) comments on the recommendations from the ‘rural crime’ proactive scrutiny were noted.

A question was asked of the Chief Executive of the OPCC:

“Further to your response to recommendation C, we noted that the new contact management system (CMS) has its own online reporting facility. How will this be managed alongside the self evident app, which was discussed by the Constabulary in evidence they provided to the Rural Crime scrutiny?”

In response the Chief Executive explained that 3rd party applications are currently being used for crime reporting/self evidence submission. Through CMS the Constabulary were looking to develop niche phone based and app based systems, which will include a specific application for police officers to use themselves. He further explained that the OPCC have also been reviewing how to better develop the existing Hampshire Alert system.

RESOLVED:

That the Commissioner’s response is noted and published on the Panel’s website.

This proactive scrutiny session will allow the Panel to scrutinise and support the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) in his intention to prevent and tackle traffic-related crime and nuisance, to improve road safety across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

This scrutiny will consider how the PCC is listening to and engaging partners, community associations and members of the public across the two counties in enhancing current prevention measures and review how effectively the PCC is holding the Chief Constable to account for policing community concerns related to traffic crime and disturbance.

The scope for this session is attached as Appendix One.  Written evidence has been received and is attached as Appendix Two. The Panel will hear oral evidence from the below stakeholders:

a) Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

b) Hampshire Constabulary

c) Hampshire County Council

d) To be confirmed

Members heard that this was the second session of the Panel’s work programme for 2016/17, with this proactive scrutiny focussing on the topic of ‘The Impact of Traffic-Related Crime and Nuisance within Communities’.

The Chairman explained that the Panel had selected this topic for review to consider how well the PCC was listening to and engaging partners, community associations and members of the public across the two counties in enhancing measures to prevent the impact of traffic related crime and nuisance within communities. It was further noted that the review would also scrutinise how effectively the PCC was holding the Chief Constable to account for policing community concerns related to traffic crime and disturbance.

A scope for this review (see Appendix 1 to Item 5 in the Minute Book) had been agreed by the Plan working group, who had written to stakeholders in the previous weeks to collate evidence (see Appendix 2 to Item 5 in the Minute Book). Members of the Public were also invited to provide written evidence to the review and the Chairman acknowledged with thanks the breadth and volume of evidence which had been submitted by members of the public as well as from local community SpeedWatch groups and other organisations.

The key questions asked of witnesses were:

·      How well has the PCC, through holding the Chief Constable to account, ensured an effective policing response to community concerns related to traffic crime and disturbance?

·      How are the Commissioner and his office engaging with local partners, community groups and members of the public to enhance current prevention measures for traffic crime and nuisance to improve road safety?

·      What are the key priorities which need to be considered by the PCC to reduce and prevent traffic nuisance within the communities Hampshire and the Isle of Wight?

·      What best practice exists which could also be considered by the PCC in his approach to enhancing the approach to tackling and preventing traffic crime and nuisance to keep roads safer across Hampshire and the IOW?

The Chairman explained that the oral evidence giving session would take the format of a expert witness panel, with all representatives present being given the opportunity to answer questions from the wider Panel. Discussion was encouraged, and any questions that were not answered on the day would be fed back to witnesses for a written response after the meeting.

The expert witnesses were provided with the opportunity to introduce themselves and to give a brief overview of their organisation’s role in reducing the impact of traffic-related crime and nuisance within the communities of Hampshire and the IOW. They were further asked to comment the key constraints affecting their organisation from being able to more effectively respond to traffic related concerns:

Old Portsmouth Community SpeedWatch Team– The Old Portsmouth Community SpeedWatch (CSW) team started in 2015 and since this time they have noted little progress from efforts to compel vehicles to slow down. The volunteers feel that with only the occasional input from a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.