- 1 -

NOTICE OF MEETING

Meeting:

Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Date and Time:

Tuesday, 15 April 2014 at 7.00 pm

Place:

Council Chamber, Civic Offices, Fleet

Telephone Enquiries to: 01252 774141 (Mrs G Chapman) gill.chapman@hart.gov.uk

Members: Ambler, Axam, Bailey, Collett (Chairman),

Gani, Harward, Lewis, Lit, Oliver, Simmons, Southern

G Bonner Chief Executive

CIVIC OFFICES, HARLINGTON WAY FLEET, HAMPSHIRE GU51 4AE

AGENDA

COPIES OF THIS AGENDA ARE AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT AND BRAILLE ON REQUEST

1 MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of 18 March 2014 are attached to be confirmed and signed

as a correct record. Paper A 2 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 3

- 2 -

4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To declare disclosable pecuniary, and any other, interests. 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA) Anyone wishing to put a question or statement to the Committee should contact the

Committee Services Officer by phone or email (see front page of this Agenda) at least two clear working days prior to the meeting. Further information can be found at http://www.hart.gov.uk/public_participation_leaflet_-_201314.pdf

6 SERVICE BOARD UPDATES Members to update the Committee on progress at Service Boards. 7 PROJECT INTEGRA ACTION PLAN -

2017 before it is submitted to Cabinet for approval. Paper B RECOMMENDATION That the Committee considers and comments on the Project Integra Draft Annual

Action Plan 2014-2017 as attached at Appendix A. 8 REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS (RIPA) QUARTERLY

UPDATE There has been no further use of the RIPA provisions (Covert Surveillance Policy) since the report to Overview and Scrutiny in April 2013.

9 REPORTS FROM OUTSIDE BODIES

Council on outside bodies. Paper C RECOMMENDATION That the effectiveness of current partnerships and external representation in meeting

A draft version of Appendix 1 to this paper has been attached. A final version will be circulated

before the meeting. 10 SAFER NORTH HAMPSHIRE AND PROPOSED MERGER OF

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS This report summarises how the community safety arrangements have been working

since the community safety teams from Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor borough councils were established as one shared service under the umbrella of Safer North Hampshire in November 2012, and presents a proposal relating to the merger of

- 3 -

the three district-based Community Safety Partnerships into one Strategic Partnership for North Hampshire. Paper D

RECOMMENDATION 1 The committee notes the outcomes of the first year of operation of Safer North

Hampshire as set out in Appendix 1; and 2 The committee supports the principle of a merger of the three Community

Safety Partnerships as set out in the report and notes that the final details of the arrangements will be presented to Council in due course.

11 CABINET WORK PROGRAMME The Cabinet Work Programme is attached for information. Paper E 12 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME The Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme is attached for consideration and

amendment. Paper F Date of Despatch: 1 April 2014

PAPER B

1

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY DATE OF MEETING: 15 APRIL 2014 TITLE OF REPORT: PROJECT INTEGRA ACTION PLAN Report of: Head of Technical and Environmental Services Cabinet member: Councillor Jonathan Glen, Environment 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To obtain the C Integra Annual Action Plan

2014-2017 before it is submitted to Cabinet for approval. 2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION 2.1 That the Committee considers and comments on the Project Integra Draft Annual

Action Plan 2014-2017 as attached at Appendix A. 3 BACKGROUND 3.1 Project Integra is a partnership of local authorities and a private waste contractor

who are working together to provide an integrated solution to the management of Hampshire's waste. The partnership includes all 11 district councils in Hampshire, the unitary authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton, Hampshire County Council, and the private waste contractor Veolia Environmental Services. The partnership serves approximately 750,000 households and processes over 800 tonnes of waste a year.

3.2 Over the last 17 years, Project Integra has delivered an internationally recognised

collection and processing infrastructure which provides a sustainable solution to the management of waste in Hampshire.

3.3 This Action Plan sits alongside the Project Integra Constitution and the Hampshire

Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy. These documents are the three core documents that underpin the Project Integra Partnership and were recently updated as part of the review of Project Integra which was undertaken in 2012/13.

3.4 One of the agreed priorities in Hart corporate plan is

4 APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT INTEGRA ACTION PLAN 4.1 The Action Plan at Appendix A was endorsed by the Project Integra Strategic Board

in February 2014 for submission to individual authorities for approval. 4.2 Authorities may approve the Draft Action Plan unreservedly or may approve it

subject to a reservation in respect of any particular matter over which it has concerns. Where approval is given subject to such reservation, the Partner

PAPER B

2

is subsequently considered by the Board, and any resolution of the Board on the matter in question does not bind that Partner Authority.

5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 The Annual Action Plan proposes that the subscription for this Council in 2014/15

will be as detailed in the table below. Provision for payment of this subscription has been made within the 2014/15 budget for service.

5.2 Project Integra

Executive Recycle for Hampshire

MAF Materials Analysis Facility

TOTAL

£4,403 £7,327.00 £6,149.87 £17,879.87

5.3 The 14/15 subscription represents a reduction of £181.68 on the subscription paid

for 13/14. 5.4

the action plan. 6 ACTION 6.1 This committee will be reported to Cabinet when approval of the

Project Integra Action plan is sought. Contact Details: Sarah Robinson, Waste & Recycling Manager Joint Waste

Client Team. Email: sarah.robinson@hart.gov.uk Tel: 01252 774426 or John Elson, Head of Technical and Environmental Services. Email: john.elson@hart.gov.uk Tel: 01252 774491

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Project Integra Draft Action Plan 2013 to 2016 BACKGROUND PAPERS: Project Integra Strategic Board Report on Project Integra Action Plan 2014-2017 27th February 2014 Further Information about Project Integra is available at: www.integra.org.uk and at www.recycleforhampshire.org.uk

PAPER B Appendix A

3

1 Introduction 1.1 The Project Integra Review and the refresh of the Joint Municipal Waste

Management Strategy led to development of a focused action plan covering the period 2013-2016. Some of these actions have now been completed, and some will remain on the next action plan. In addition there are some new actions added. This Action Plan sets out the:

Proposed key actions for the Project Integra Partnership in 2014/15 with longer term actions through to 2016/17;

Budget for the proposed activities and the contributions of each partner.

2 Purpose 2.1 To set out a Draft Action Plan for the Project Integra Partnership for

2014 2017 for consideration and approval by the Partner Authorities. 3 Approach 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

This Action Plan covers the collective actions of Project Integra partners to deliver the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy (JMWMS). Actions involving two or more Partner Authorities are included actions by individual authorities are not. The Action Plan is a 3 year rolling plan in recognition of the fact that some actions will take longer than a year to complete. However, most detail is for 2014/15. The Action Plan is prepared annually by Strategy Officers and presented for agreement by the Project Integra Strategic Board (PISB) and then for approval by each authority. In the case of the Recycle for Hampshire education campaign, it is proposed that a notice period of at least 6 months is required should any of the 10 funding authorities not wish to partake in this action. This is to reflect the fact that there are three Education Officers whom may be affected by such a withdrawal.

3.5 An outline proposal for the action plan was presented at PISB in

November 2013, and this has been used to develop this Draft Action Plan.

Project Integra Action Plan 2014 2017

PAPER B Appendix A

4

4 Partnership Objectives 4.1 The Project Integra Strategic Board is constituted as a Joint Committee

of the 14 local authorities with responsibility for waste management in Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton. The long term waste disposal contractor Veolia Environmental Services (VES) is a non-voting member of the Partnership.

4.2 As part of the review the PISB

objective as follows: To provide a sustainable solution for dealing with Hampshire's municipal waste1 in an environmentally sound, cost effective and reliable way. Success in achieving this depends on joint working between all the parties in the best interests of our communities.

4.3 The PISB also agreed the operational focus for its activities through a

number of work streams as follows. Working to reduce costs across the whole system through:

1. Communication and behaviour change. 2. Waste prevention including reuse. 3. Recycling and performance improvements - for instance through

reducing contamination, increasing capture of materials, improving income for materials, changing management arrangements.

4. Reducing landfill. 5. Joint working arrangements and activities. 6. Improve efficiency and effectiveness of services through

collaboration with neighbouring authorities including SE7.

4.4 Identified below is a table of key actions for the Partnership together

with timescales and those responsible for delivery.

1 This refers to the waste streams local authorities have responsibility for (mainly waste from households

Collected

PAPER B Appendix A

5

Table 1: Key Actions for Project Integra 2014 2017 Action 1 Recycle for Hampshire (R4H)

Programme Workstream Contribution

Detail Deliver the approved R4H programme in accordance with the agreed timescale. Programme delivered on budget to time with all actions complete.

Communication and behaviour change

Waste prevention including reuse

Recycling and performance improvements

Reducing landfill Joint working

arrangements and activities

Whole system costs

To include: Campaigns to:

o increase capture of specific materials for recycling

o Reduce contamination (including implementing contamination compact)

Recycle Week events Promotion of reduced price compost

bins and accessories Targets Demonstrable increase in material

capture and reduction in contamination in areas engaged

Recycle Week events delivered Continued sales of compost bins

and accessories across Hampshire How will this be measured?

Monitoring capture rate and contamination rates via the Materials Analysis Facility

Monitoring of marketing metrics Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra

Recycle for Hampshire team (delivery)

PI Communications Sub Committee oversees this work

Resources R4H budget significantly reduced in 14-15 compared with previous years. Detail in section 5 of this action plan.

Timescale Annual Programme with specific objectives

PAPER B Appendix A

6

Action 2 Schools Recycling Programme Workstream Contribution Detail To deliver the Schools Recycling

Programme to 60 schools per annum across 9 district areas. To maximise the benefit of the Schools Recycling Programme and with R4H ensure that resources, (including web based), are used as widely and effectively as possible. (Secondary schools/ Brownies/charities etc)

Communication and behaviour change

Waste prevention including reuse

Recycling and performance improvements

Reducing landfill Joint working

arrangements and activities

Whole system costs

Targets Improved awareness of waste & resource management among the population as a result of the education programme.

How will this be measured?

Parent surveys Monitoring of recycling rates school

catchment areas Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra

Recycle for Hampshire team (delivery)

PI Communications Sub Committee oversees this work

Resources R4H budget Timescale Annual Programme with specific

objectives, to tie in with R4H campaigns. Action 3 Waste Prevention Plan Workstream Contribution Detail Implementation of PI Waste Prevention

Plan, focusing on a reduction in residual waste collected and disposed of in PI.

Communication and behaviour change

Waste prevention including reuse

Recycling and performance improvements

Reducing landfill Joint working

arrangements and activities

Whole system costs

Targets Finalise plan for implementation by June 14

To perform better than national household waste arisings trends

Other metrics to be included in implementation plan

Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra All Project Integra authorities (WDA lead)

Resources To be determined in implementation plan Timescale Implementation programme to be

finalised by June 2014 and implemented up to March 2017.

PAPER B Appendix A

7

Action 4 Resource Capture and Treatment Review

Workstream Contribution

Detail Carry out a review of existing and potential new capture methods and treatment options for waste collected in PI. Demonstrate PI compliance with the

under the Waste Regulations 2011.

Recycling and performance improvements

Reducing landfill Joint working

arrangements and activities

Whole system costs Targets Present detailed report and a range of

options for change to PISB for consideration.

Options to be presented on a cost-benefit basis.

Where approved by PISB, devise implementation plan for changes to capture and /or treatment methods.

How will this be measured?

Regular updates on review to PISB and individual partners

Delivery of final report and recommendations

Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra Project scope will set out governance

arrangements, but a project team and review steering group will be required

All partners will be required to engage in the review in order to complete project

Resources Project Integra budgets exact staff resourcing TBC.

Timescale Initial report on plastic composition by April 2014. Interim review report with initial findings at Oct 2014 PISB, final report with recommendations and draft implementation plan for January 2015 PISB.

Action 5 Joint Working outside of PI Workstream Contribution Detail Ensure engagement with further

developments of the SE7 waste workstream and the waste partnerships in the south east region, to increase lobbying power and identify opportunities for closer working together.

All

Target Increased opportunities for performance improvement and reduced costs.

Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra in conjunction with HCC SE7 lead

Resources Project Integra Budget Timescale 2014-2017

PAPER B Appendix A

8

Action 6 Joint Procurement Workstream Contribution Detail Carry out joint procurement exercises

where feasible, including: Waste containers (bins, boxes, bags) Vehicles Small WEEE recycling banks Training and work placements

Joint working arrangements and activities

Whole system costs Recycling and

performance improvements

Reducing landfill Targets Achieve better value for money and

significant savings for Project Integra partners.

Produce annual report on progress. Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra

With procurement advice from a lead individual authority when required

Resources Project Integra Budget Timescale 2014/15 and onwards if appropriate Action 7 Health and Safety Workstream Contribution Detail Through the PI group Common

Approach to Safety and Health (CASH) ensure best practice shared and projects delivered by task and finish groups, including: Noise impact of glass collections Organising a CASH conference

Joint working arrangements and activities

Target Reduction in lost-time incidents in Hampshire

Produce annual report for PISB on the progress made by the group

Influence national H&S debate through multi-agency H&S forums

Responsibility Head of Project Integra and chair of CASH

Resources Project Integra Budget Timescale Annual Report June 2014 and June

2015.

PAPER B Appendix A

9

Action 8 Glass Recycling Contract Workstream Contribution Detail Current PI glass contract ends in 2016.

Review of existing contract and options for future glass processing to be developed.

All

Target To secure a value for money outlet for PI glass from 2016 onwards, either buy extending or re-procuring.

Responsibility Lead Head of Project Integra in partnership with a lead authority for procurement - TBC

Resources To be determined Timescale Review existing arrangements during

2015, current contract ends 2016

PAPER B Appendix A

10

5 Resources 5.1 5.2

The forecast for each main element of the Partnership are set out in Appendix 1:

Executive £117,200 (-40% change from 2012/13 budget). This is an estimate in Jan 2015, the final cost of the executive will be split between partners as described in 5.3 below. This forecast assumes that all 15 current partners remain in PI.

Recycle for Hampshire £138,200; Materials Analysis Facility £239,845 (+2.9% change from

2012/13). In addition there is £90,000 in the PI holding account, to be used for projects benefitting all partners. £7,000 has been allocated to a research project for plastic waste. It is anticipated that further funding will be required for the Resource Capture and Treatment Review. The review will require full engagement from all partners to ensure its aims and objectives are achieved.

5.3 Authority contributions are based on:

Executive - total number of households with elements for collection (80%) and disposal (20%);

Recycle for Hampshire total number of households (9 WCAs) plus HCC £50,000;

Materials Analysis Facility one third WCAs (evenly split), one third WDAs (split by tonnage), one third VES.

The contributions for each authority are set out in Appendix 2 5.4 During 14-15, work will begin on designing a model for PI that will

enable it to become self funding in the future.

11

APPENDIX 1

Budgets Executive Activities Costs Staff Costs 72,500 Events & Activities 1,000 HCC SLA 42,000 Printing, Stationery, Legal costs 1,700 Gross Expenditure £117,200 Total Income £117,200 Recycle for Hampshire (exact split of budget TBC) Activities Costs Staffing Costs 60,000 Schools Recycling Programme Education Officers x 3 45,000 Schools Recycling Programme Resources 4,000 Home Composting (leaflets to promote bins) 1,000 Campaign activity 28,200 Total Expenditure £138,200 Materials Analysis Facility (MAF) Costs Total Expenditure £239,845

PAPER C

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DATE OF MEETING: 15 APRIL 2014 TITLE OF REPORT: REPORTS FROM REPRESENTATIVES ON OUTSIDE

BODIES Report of: Corporate Director Cabinet Member: Ken Crookes, Leader 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT work in 2013/14 as representatives of the

Council on outside bodies.

2013/14 is attached for consideration as Appendix 1. 2 RECOMMENDATION Members are requested to consider the effectiveness of current partnerships and

information. Contact: Patricia Hughes, patricia.hughes@hart.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 Summary of Reports from Representatives on Outside Bodies

PAPER D

1

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY DATE OF MEETING: 15 APRIL 2014 TITLE OF REPORT: SAFER NORTH HAMPSHIRE AND PROPOSED

MERGER OF COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS

Report of: Corporate Director Cabinet member: Councillor John Kennett, Community Safety 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1

This report summarises how the community safety arrangements have been working since the community safety teams from Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor borough councils were established as one shared service under the umbrella of Safer North Hampshire in November 2012.

1.2 The report also presents a proposal relating to the merger of the three district-

based Community Safety Partnerships into one Strategic Partnership for North Hampshire, serviced by the officer team of Safer North Hampshire. A similar report will be presented to the relevant committees, Portfolio Holders and Community Safety Partnerships in Basingstoke and Rushmoor.

2 OFFICER RECOMMENDATION 2.1 The committee notes the outcomes of the first year of operation of Safer North

Hampshire as set out in Appendix 1; and 2.2 The committee supports the principle of a merger of the three Community Safety

Partnerships as set out in the report and notes that the final details of the arrangements will be presented to Council in due course.

3 BACKGROUND 3.1

In June 2012 Cabinet received a report with the outcomes of a review of the Community Safety Partnerships and the teams that support them in Basingstoke and Deane, Rushmoor and Hart. The report made recommendations seeking to make working arrangements more efficient and effective, while improving the service delivered to residents across the area.

3.2 This report sought approval from Cabinet to the principles of forming a shared

community safety services based on Rushmoor Borough Council as the employing authority and predicated on the closer working between the three Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) operating across North East Hampshire1 with a view to seeking a formal merger at a later stage.

1The area comprising the districts of Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor has subsequently been referred to as North Hampshire.

PAPER D

2

3.3 The shared community safety service, known as Safer North Hampshire, became

effective on 1 November 2012. 3.4 The Safer North Hampshire team has both operational and strategic roles. The

operational focus is dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) through intervention programmes for offenders through partnership working, with particular priorities of reducing repeat victimisation and repeat offending. Each district has retained operational ASB officers working in their geographic area, but as an integrated team there are a range of benefits, including:

a one team approach enabling the sharing of expertise and experience;

flexibility to ensure resources are in the right place at the right time, with the ability to respond to urgent priorities and improve resilience; and

ensuring a consistent approach across the area. 3.5 Each district has recognised the need to maintain operational links with local

partners to ensure delivery at the district level, to funnel ASB issues to the right place and to monitor outcomes.

3.6 The team also includes project officers with a specific remit to deliver community

safety education through campaigns and school initiatives in Hart and, where agreed, across the Safer North Hants area.

3.7 At a strategic level, the team, primarily through the Community Safety Manager and

Analyst roles, now delivers a range of activity across the three districts whereas previously each council would have been undertaking the same tasks, albeit to different degrees. This includes: publishing a joint strategic assessment and partnership plan; producing monthly incident analysis reports for the Community Tasking and

Coordinating Group in each district, coordinating each relevant CSP; keeping abreast of, and disseminating information relating to, legislative changes; developing robust operational protocols and procedures; applying for and managing grants; contributing to (and leading where relevant) multi-agency groups addressing

Offender Management, Terrorism, Domestic Homicide, etc. media and promotional activity; service planning, monitoring and development; and staff leadership.

3.8 An Executive Summary of the first year of operation of the Safer North Hampshire

team is attached at Appendix 1. This highlights the work involved to achieve the one integrated team and the community safety outcomes achieved by the team. It also shows the impact of the collaborative working of partner agencies to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour.

3.9 The summary shows that the shared service arrangements are working well and has

delivered a number of improvements, particularly with regard to processes and

PAPER D

3

partnerships, without significantly diminishing the scope of the strategic services offered. This in turn has led to a more robust approach to dealing with ASB casework which over time will lead to more effective interventions and a reduction in the number of repeat victims and offenders.

3.10 The strategic assessment now paints a picture for the whole Safer North Hampshire

area while retaining local priorities, and leadership under one manager means policy development and liaison with key stakeholders continues but covers a wider area. This enables partners to also be more strategic and deal with crime and antisocial behaviour in a more effective way, thereby improving the service to communities.

3.11 In addition to streamlining processes and increasing shared knowledge and resilience

through the shared service, the arrangements have achieved efficiency savings to each council which amount to £107,000 across the three districts. For Hart District Council the saving was £28,964.

3.12 This saving has been generated by reducing the strategic resource for the district,

since there is now one Community Safety Manager for the shared service rather than the three posts that existed previously, and a shared contribution to the data analyst function which was previously a post only held in BDBC. In addition, sums were set aside to manage the transition process, which are no longer required.

3.13 It is acknowledged there is further improvement that can be made. It is also

recognised that expectations and workload in some aspects of the community safety service is different to that scoped as part of the review. These include:

at district level in addition to county and regional level than anticipated; A greater demand for data to support Community Tasking and Coordination

Groups, Anti-Social Behaviour panels and quarterly performance reports for each of the 3 districts;

An increasing volume of casework relating to anti-social behaviour contracts; The level of input to research for the Supporting Troubled Families programme; A greater focus on preventing repeat victimisation; The introduction of programmes to detect and prevent extremist activity; Greater focus on support for domestic abuse awareness and prevention; and ly

with regard to funding applications. While involvement in these areas of work is extremely positive, it has led to some

resource pressures on the staffing structure approved as part of the shared service. Some additional administrative and communications support has been secured for the team through external funding arrangements and more flexibility has been introduced in the team to enable greater resource to be given to a particular project for a limited time should the need be identified. However the scope of involvement in the issues identified above will need to be kept under review to ensure the structure is sustainable in the longer term. Given that the shared service is now embedded, it is now desirable to progress the formal merger of the three community safety partnerships.

PAPER D

4

4 CONSIDERATIONS 4.1

Community Safety Partnerships were established as statutory bodies under sections 5-7 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. CSPs are required to have representatives from 'responsible authorities' the district councils, and from statutory partners - Police, Fire, Probation Services, County Council and Clinical Commissioning Groups (prior to health service reorganisation this was the Primary Care Trusts).

4.2 The organisations of the CSPs are required to work together to develop and

implement strategies to protect their local communities from crime and to help people feel safe. They work out local approaches to deal with issues including antisocial behaviour, drug or alcohol misuse and re-offending.

4.3 The options under consideration in this report are either to agree a merger on the

terms required under the legislation or to retain the three individual CSPs. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended in 2012, the Police and Crime Commissioner can only merge CSPs together where such a move would be in the interests of one or more of the following criteria:

1. reduce crime and disorder 2. reduce reoffending 3. combating the misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances

4.4

The proposal to merge the three CSPs currently serving Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor would be in the interest of all these criteria. It would bring a strategic approach to addressing the issues that have already been identified as common across the three areas, and bring consistency of message and response from all agencies in the Partnerships.

4.5 Partnership resources would be maintained across the Safer North Hants area and,

where necessary, could be enhanced to address specific priorities in local neighbourhoods through the targeted deployment of resources or campaign information.

4.6 A merger legally has to have certain characteristics, namely that there must be

Unanimous buy-in from all responsible authorities; Clear evidence of benefits arising from the merger; Clear commitment to focus on PCC priorities; One Overview and Scrutiny body across the 3 districts

4.7 Further Legal advice is being sought on the requirements to dissolve the merger

once established, however, the it is understood that a majority of the partners would need to be in agreement that the principles outlined in 4.3 above, would be

4.8 The PCC for Hampshire has indicated he is supportive of a merger in principle,

subject to evidence that the arrangements fulfil the criteria set out in the legislation. A Combination Agreement would need to be agreed which will set out the legal framework and terms of reference for the operation of a merged CSP.

PAPER D

5

4.9 The CSP would need to be of a manageable size with membership from the

responsible authorities and statutory partners. Talks are still ongoing between all the partners about the details, but it is a pre-requisite that each district council would be represented. Discussions are also taking place between the councils about the single scrutiny arrangements, the conclusions of which will be presented to Cabinet and then on to Council.

4.10 It is considered that a formal merger would support the work of all partners in the

CSP to reduce crime and disorder, reoffending and drug, alcohol and substance misuse and this is therefore the preferred option. The alternative is to retain the three CSPs in each district. While they have been operating effectively and cooperation between the respective areas has been good, a merged CSP offers greater potential benefit. Retaining the three CSPs is therefore not the favoured option.

5 FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1

There are no financial implications arising from the merger of the three CSPs. The structure of Safer North Hampshire has been established with a view to operating with one strategic CSP in the future. The council's contribution to the Safer North Hampshire officer team is factored into the approved budget for 2014/15.

5.2 Should a merger not be approved, there may be financial implications arising from

the fact that three separate CSPs will need on-going support in the long term which is likely to result in resource pressures at management level within the team which would need to be addressed.

5.3 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires that all local authorities

have a duty to consider crime and disorder implications. There is a statutory requirement for a Community Safety Partnership covering each local authority area; the scope of the area covered by each Community Safety Partnership is not defined.

5.3.1 If the requirements of the PCC are met and the merger is approved by the

PCC, each local authority and the other responsible authorities will have fulfilled their legal obligations by having one CSP for North Hampshire.

5.3.2 Section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 requires that every local

authority has a committee with power to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions and to make reports or recommendations to the local authority with respect to the discharge of those functions. In Hart, it is the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that has been identified with these functions.

5.3.3 One joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee responsible for the functions of

one CSP for North Hampshire would fulfil the requirements of the legislation.

PAPER D

6

6 ACTION 6.1 The information presented for the assessment of the first year's operation of Safer

North Hampshire shows that the new shared service is generally working well and has contributed to positive outcomes relating to reducing and addressing crime and disorder.

6.2 The statutory partners of the relevant CSPs in each district will be considering the

merger proposal and will need to formally approve the merger through their respective decision making processes.

6.3 Subject to 6.2, each council will need to approve the requirement for one joint

Overview and Scrutiny committee; this will be carried out by Council following consideration of the final proposal.

6.4 The PCC supports the merger in principle and there is confidence that his

requirements for one strategic partnership can be met. 6.5 It is therefore proposed that this committee supports the principle of the merger of

the three Community Safety Partnerships 6.6 The views of the committee will be considered by the Portfolio Holder (Leader)

prior to a report to Cabinet and decision of Council. Contact Details: Patricia Hughes, x4450, patricia.hughes@hart.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1 Safer North Hampshire Year 1 Report

PAPER D Appendix 1

7

Safer North Hampshire Year 1 Report

1. Introduction and context

1.1 A review of the three Community Safety Partnerships and Community Safety council

officer teams operating in North Hampshire (Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor) was conducted in 2011-12 with the aim of:

Identify similarities and differences between the three partnerships and teams.

Identify savings and efficiencies. Propose future structure and service delivery options.

1.2 This had been initiated because it was recognised there were (and continue to be)

common problems across all three areas, including:

Anti-Social Behaviour Violent Crime Domestic Abuse Drugs and Alcohol

1.3 The review was also considered timely as the teams and partnerships needed to take

account of changes in the community safety environment:

Direct funding from the Home Office Safer and Stronger Communities fund was reducing year on year, meaning resources needed to be focused on key priorities and the work carried out as efficiently as possible.

A further £600,000 of partnership funding was lost across the Hampshire

County Council area when the former Basic Command Unit Fund, paid to the police, was discontinued in 2011/12.

The Police and Crime Commissioner elections were due to take place in

November and there were questions about how community safety would engage with the PCC and what level of funding support would be available.

Hampshire policing areas had recently been changed and it was believed that

working collaboratively within the Northern policing area would streamline communications and practices.

Partner agencies, whose boundaries do not mirror local authority boundaries

would benefit from one Strategic Community Safety Partnership being formed to reduce the amount of duplication in terms of meeting attendance and engagement.

1.4 The findings of the review supported the establishment of one shared service officer

team and a collaborative working model for the three Community Safety Partnerships with a view to moving to a formal merger should all parties be happy to do so approximately 18 months later.

PAPER D Appendix 1

8

1.5 A staffing structure was agreed and processes put in motion to identify the manager to move the project forward. Rushmoor Borough Council was identified as the host authority for the combined team and a significant amount of work was undertaken by officers across three authorities to progress HR and TUPE, IT solutions, Communications Strategy, Branding, Accounting, senior line management and legal arrangements. The agreed structure saw existing staff based out of their local authorities delivering services at a local level but managed by one Community Safety Manager funded equally by the three authorities with a division of time between them. The Safer North Hampshire team was officially launched on November 1, 2012.

1.5.1 The structure of the team is shown at Appendix A. Since the original structure was

put in place there has been the addition of an apprentice for the service, a part time admin assistant post, and the Domestic Violence Co-ordinator whose work is obviously very closely aligned with the priorities and objectives of the Community Safety team.

2. Identifying the priorities 2.1 The first joint Strategic Assessment was conducted when Safer North Hampshire

and identified both the common priorities across the area and the issues that were specific to each individual district/borough.

2.2 The Strategic Assessment confirmed the common priorities were consistent with

those identified in 1.2; it also highlighted area specific issues including:

Disproportionate fear of crime in Hart Community Tensions in Rushmoor Higher levels of anti social behaviour in key locations in Basingstoke

2.3 A full year assessment has now been completed which has informed the overarching

priorities for the Safer North Hampshire area:

Anti-Social Behaviour with a focus on supporting and empowering victims Domestic Abuse with a focus on reducing domestic violence against the

person Violent crime specifically within Town Centre locations

2.4 At Hart, the full year assessment of the data from 2012/13 shows that efforts should

be focused on partnership activity to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour in:

Fleet Town Centre

2.5 An agreement has recently been reached to align the Safer North Hampshire strategic assessment with that of the Northern Policing area to produce one strategic assessment. This will encompass both quantitative and qualitative information to create a rich picture of crime and anti-social behaviour in the North Hampshire area which will in turn enable much smarter use of resources.

PAPER D Appendix 1

9

3. Community safety data for Hart

The following tables show the data for reported incidents and trends between 1st April 2012 and 31st March 2013.

3.1 Total Crime

Total crime in all categories fell significantly in the year to March 2013. Full year data for the period to March 2014 will be reported in April 2014.

Incident Type (Hart) 2011/2012 2012/2013 % change

Total crime 3787 2947 -22% (n840)

The breakdown across reported incidents types is shown below. 3.2 Anti-Social Behaviour 3.2.1 Reported incidents of Anti-Social Behaviour

Anti-social Behaviour (Hart) 2011/2012 2012/2013 % change

Total anti-social behaviour 2027 1794 -11% (n233)

ASB Environmental 229 183 -20% (n46)

ASB Personal 1110 987 -11% (n123)

ASB Nuisance 688 624 -9% (n64)

3.2.2 Safer North Hants Casework relating to Anti-Social Behaviour

Dealing with anti-social behaviour is the core operational work of the team. Between January and December 2013:

193 individuals were referred for intervention work through the shared information network SafetyNet as a result of their ASB

Referrals were made to Young Firefighters Association, Youth Offending Team, Young Persons Counselling service, the Challenge and Change programme, the ASB Panel and for Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC).

There were 19 individuals successfully signed onto ABCs, 2 that refused to sign up and 2 that were considered by other agencies not suitable for an ABC as they were already engaging.

As a result of successful early intervention work, no Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO) were issued by the Community Safety Team in the year.

In the year there were 1486 contact encounters with offenders and victims logged through the SafetyNet system, 980 updates on cases and 501 individual reviews completed.

PAPER D Appendix 1

10

3.2.3 In addition to Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, interventions available to the team include warning letters being sent home, phone calls and meetings with parents, findvictims of ASB through regular phone calls, providing updates from meetings, and liaising on their behalf with partner and outside agencies. The team update the shared information system SafetyNet with actions taken and regularly review whether individuals continue to be identified as perpetrators or victims of ASB. Risk assessments are undertaken by an ASB officer and police officer following ASB incidents to ascertain likelihood of repeat victims so that relevant mitigation can be considered.

3.2.4 Safer North Hampshire also supports the police where they have identified the need for Anti-Social Behaviour orders (ASBO) or premises closure notices/orders where other interventions have failed to stop ASB.

3.3 Violent Crime 3.3.1 Reported incidents of Violent Crime

Incident type (Hart) 2011/2012 2012/2013 % change

Night Time Economy issues (Town Centre 10pm 3am)

Violence against the person 126 82 -35% (n44)

Anti-social behaviour 217 168 -23% (n49)

Criminal damage 77 69 -10% (n8)

Violent offences

Total violent crime 738 563 -24% (n175)

Violence against the person 676 527 -22% (n149)

Sexual offences 55 28 -49% (n27)

Robbery 7 8 +14% (n1)

Domestic Abuse

Total Domestic Incidents 481 573 +19% (n92)

Domestic Crimes 143 150 +5% (n7)

Violence Against the Person 115 127 +10% (n12)

PAPER D Appendix 1

11

3.3.2 Safer North Hants Casework relating to Violent Crime 3.3.3 The Community Safety Team works in partnership with the Police and other

agencies to reduce violent crime. The Community Safety Manager co-chairs the Northern Area Violence Reduction Group which is a multi-agency forum using analysis into violent crime to identify key location and offenders and discuss ways in which the issues raised can be addressed.

3.3.4 The measures at the disposal of the group include; licence reviews where there are

repeat incidents of violence, awareness campaigns for DV, schools, pubs and clubs, Taxi marshalling in hotspot locations, the use of A&E data to inform any targeted responses, Street Pastor schemes to diffuse alcohol fuelled tensions, liaison with armed services to pre-empt issues when soldiers are returning from active duty.

3.4 Environmental Crime 3.4.1 Reported Incidents of Environmental Crime

Incident Type (Hart) 2011/2012 2012/2013 % change

Criminal damage and arson 690 611 -11% (n79)

HFRS arson (Hart & Rushmoor)

194 85 -56% (n109)

Graffiti 228 77 -66% (n151)

Fly-tipping 225 (since Oct)

318 N/A

3.4.2 Safer North Hants Casework relating to Environmental Crime 3.4.3 Safer North Hampshire work very closely with Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service

to reduce arson risk and change behaviours of fire setters through projects such as LIFE (Local Intervention Fire Education) and the YFA (Young Fire Fighters Association). The team also identifies properties that are vulnerable to the risk of arson/fire through the VAS (Vulnerable Awareness Scheme) which enables the Fire and Rescue Service to make fire safety checks and recommendations to mitigate identified risks.

3.5 Acquisitive Crime 3.5.1 Reported Incidents of Acquisitive Crime

Incident type (Hart) 2011/2012 2012/2013 % change

Burglary dwelling 151 127 -16% (n24)

Burglary non dwelling 493 369 -25% (n124)

Theft of motor vehicle 116 53 -54% (n63)

PAPER D Appendix 1

12

Theft from motor vehicle 293 198 -32% (n95)

Other theft and handling 888 664 -25% (n224)

Shop theft 137 139 +1% (n2)

Fraud and forgery 102 73 -28% (n29)

3.5.2 Safer North Hants Casework relating to Acquisitive Crime

Crime prevention campaigns are coordinated by the team in partnership with other agencies with the purpose of increasing awareness of risks of theft and of measures that can be taken to reduce those risks. For example:

The team has made contact with numerous property owners in Basingstoke and Deane to provide crime prevention advice and equipment as part of Operation Stronghold

Letters have been sent to residents who had left items of value on display in a car or otherwise left their vehicle or property vulnerable to theft. Feedback from recipients of these letters has been very positive.

3.6 Drug and other offences 3.6.1 Reported Incidents of Drug and other offences

Incident type (Hart) 2012 2013 % change

Drug offences 143 124 -13% (n19)

Alcohol related offences 294 215 -27% (n79)

Underage sales complaints (recorded by Trading Standards)

5 1 -80% (n4)

Hate crime 24 23 -4% (n1)

YOT Triage/Youth Restorative Disposal (from YOIS)

N/A 14 N/A

YOT First Time Entrants 26 18 -31% (n8)

Doorstep Crime (reported to TS) 11 9 -18% (n2)

Noise Complaints to HDC 346 364 +5% (n18)

3.6.2 Safer North Hants Casework relating to Drug and other offences

Drug related crime is a focus for Safer North Hampshire and work is currently underway in partnership with the police and other relevant agencies to undertake proactive work under the Operation Fortress brand. This scheme was pioneered in Southampton and has now been adopted forcewide. As part of this initiative Drug Strategy Panels have been established and joint operations are currently underway in the Safer North Hampshire area.

PAPER D Appendix 1

13

Focus on substance misuse in relation to prevention, intervention and treatment continues within work in schools and colleges, domestic abuse interventions, as part of the Challenge and Change programme and in the tasking of patrolling officers.

4. Other activity of Safer North Hampshire 4.1 Funding applications The team made a range of applications to various funding bodies in to support the

work of the team across the Safer North Hampshire area during 2013/14: a) Police and Crime Commissioner

Work addressing Anti-social Behaviour and Night Time Economy The Challenge and Change programme a robust 6 week programme aimed at

addressing ASB and low level crime and reducing the number of first time entrants into the criminal justice system.

Non-dwelling burglary and rural crime initiative (Op Stronghold) aimed at target hardening and crime prevention to reduce incidents of serious acquisitive crime primarily in rural areas.

Administrative support (P/T) the community safety staffing structure did not include administrative support and it became apparent early on that this was a vital component of the team.

A total of £39,500 was awarded to support these initiatives

b) Hampshire Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT)

A bid to support the work of the North East Hampshire Drug and Alcohol Action Team which is chaired and co-ordinated by the community safety team resulted in an award of £10,000.

c) LIBOR fund (a fund created from fines levied on the banks for attempting to manipulate LIBOR and made available to the MOD for use in supporting the armed forces community.)

A successful bid was made to the for a Domestic Abuse project to produce a

toolkit identifying services and pathways for service personnel affected by domestic abuse. The project is being led by the Domestic Abuse Co-ordinator for North Hampshire and the Community Safety Manager and is a tri-service partnership initiative with the Army, Navy and RAF. The LIBOR award for this project was £59,380.

The total income generated by the service for 13/14 was therefore £108,880. Further funding bids have recently been made to support service activity in 2014/15.

PAPER D Appendix 1

14

4.2 Strengthening partnership work 4.2.1 The Safer North Hampshire Team worked closely with the three Neighbourhood

Watch Schemes in North Hampshire and assisted them in a successful bid to the

sourcing items for purchase from this bid money and continue to assist them with the production of a NHW pamphlet to the issued to all new members across North Hampshire.

4.2.2 The team is developing links with mental health service providers across the area as

there is an identified gap in provision related to ASB and those affected by mental health disorders.

4.2.3 Closer links have been forged with Victim Support and HMP Winchester and both of

these services now play an active role in the Challenge and Change programme and are keen to engage in other elements of the community safety service.

4.2.4 All ASB officers have spent time working in each of the authorities in an effort to

create a greater understanding of demography and crime, to foster relationships with partners and to ensure that the service that is being provided across the area is consistent.

5. Risks 5.1 Hampshire Police are currently conducting a major review of their service in order

to identify savings of £25 million. The outcomes of this review will need to be assessed in term of the impact on partnership community safety activities.

5.2 Hampshire Probation Service is going through major change in response to Central

Government directives and again the extent of these changes and their impact on the community safety service and its statutory representation on the CSP is as yet unclear.

5.3 The recent announcement about the cessation of the HCC Accredited Community

Safety Officer service will have a significant impact on the work of Safer North Hampshire and its partners. In Basingstoke and Deane, since 2010 the county

- the only district in Hampshire to do so. A commitment has been made by the f our residents to be affected and will take

whatever measures are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of our community safety patrol team is maintained." Work is currently underway to consider how that patrolling service can be delivered in the borough from January 2015.

5.4

workload depending on the criteria that is set and response required. County Community Safety Managers are currently liaising with the OPCC to agree a standard process for Hampshire.

PAPER D Appendix 1

15

6. Opportunities 6.1 Legislative changes relating to reforms of anti-social behaviour powers that are due

to be implemented in the autumn will provide an impetus to revisit processes and procedures to ensure that Safer North Hampshire and partners are ready for the changes. The changes themselves will afford greater opportunity to address issues that arise in a timely and proportionate way because they significantly reduce the bureaucracy involved.

6.2 Cross-authority partnership opportunities have been identified in relation to

community based victim work, education and awareness, graffiti focus, CREW and Think Safe. In some instances initiatives have already been implemented and this is set to continue.

6.3 Formal merger of the community safety partnerships and further development of the

service and how it is delivered across the area has been a key objective for the team and it is hoped that this will be realised during 2014.

7. Self-Assessment of Year 1 activity 7.1 A self-assessment has been undertaken of the way in which Safer North Hampshire

has been operating over its first year. The process has been adapted from a model developed from the Improvement and Development Agency. The model assesses seven criteria, and the Safer North Hampshire Steering Group has assessed the service using the following ratings: Assessment Ratings Superior Exceeds expectations Solid Meets expectations, consistent performance Satisfactory Mostly acceptable, some development

needed Struggling Mostly weak, needs attention

7.2 The summary assessment is as follows:

1 - Achievement and outcomes There is evidence which shows that Safer North Hampshire is making progress in delivering objectives set out in plans and strategies. The team can demonstrate a number of achievements, which are making a difference to the area, enhancing the quality of life for local people and improving service delivery. 2 Empowered and effective leadership The extent there is open and collective leadership on community safety issues from key partners (the 3 LAs of the Shared Service) and at all levels, which supports improved performance and the delivery of community safety priorities. Leadership fosters trust, strong relationships and effective communication across the partners.

PAPER D Appendix 1

16

3 Effective and responsive delivery structures The structure which enables the team to deliver its priorities is fit for purpose. It acts as a platform for converting plans and discussion into action. 4 Intelligence led business process The team has arrangements in place for gathering and using intelligence from a range of agencies to take an evidence based approach to its work. 5 Engaging communities The team understand the needs and aspirations of local people. They are able to ensure that community safety priorities are driven by the needs of local people and that local people are engaged in designing and delivering services that best meet the

6 Visible and constructive accountability The team has robust arrangements in place for translating its priorities and objectives into the day-to-day actions of individual staff and team activity and to actively manage performance so as to deliver the objectives of the community safety plans. The partners monitor, review and manage in order to continually drive up performance 7 Appropriate skills and knowledge The team has a strong learning ethos, ensuring that individuals are developing the appropriate skills and knowledge and there is sharing of good practice

7.3 The self-assessment process shows that the team and the service it provides is

generally meeting expectations but that there are areas around strategic leadership and accountability where some development is needed. This will be the focus of the Steering Group in the coming year.

PAPER D Appendix 1

17

Appendix A

Safer North Hampshire Team Structure

O&S.39

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE Date and Time: 15 April 2014 at 7pm Place: Council Chamber, Civic Offices Present: COUNCILLORS Simmons (Chair) Ambler, Axam, Bailey, Gani, Southern In attendance: Councillors Billings and Kennett Officers: Patricial Hughes Corporate Director Caroline Ryan Community Safety Manager John Elson Head of Environmental and Technical Maintenance

105 MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of 18 March 2014 were confirmed and signed as a

correct record. 106 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies had been received from Councillors Collett, Lewis, Lit, Oliver. 107 None. 108 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None declared. 109 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA) None. 110 SERVICE BOARD UPDATES Members updated the Committee on progress at Service Boards.

Environment & Leisure Cancelled in agreement with Members Housing Reviewed the plan for the year and the draft Homelessness Strategy ahead of a further consultation.

O&S.40

Community Safety, Licensing and Environmental Health Community Safety discussed the paper presented to the Committee (see Minute 114 below), but was just under budget in 13/14. Environmental Health was a great service meeting all of its targets, and Members asked that thanks to Nick Steevens and his team be recorded. Budgets were slightly over due to a poorer wasp nest income than anticipated. Planning no update Corporate Management - meeting the following day (16 April). Apologies had been received from Councillors Southern and Burchfield. Further comments would be made to the next Overview and Scrutiny Meeting.

111 PROJECT INTEGRA ACTION PLAN The Committee was asked for comments on the Project Integra Annual Action Plan

2014-2017 before it is submitted to Cabinet for approval. RESOLVED That the Project Integra Draft Annual Action Plan 2014-2017 be considered subject

to:

Officers exploring whether Hart can work with Collards on recycling, particularly with regard to plastics.

Exploration as to why on the PI Action Plan - Actions 5, 6, 7, 8 have no measure

PI Action Plan - to include previous years figures budgets as well as to show the changes in contributions

112 REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS (RIPA) QUARTERLY UPDATE There had been no further use of the RIPA provisions (Covert Surveillance Policy) since the report to Overview and Scrutiny in April 2013. The Committee discussed the quarterly reporting process as the mechanism for monitoring the use of RIPA, and the Committee voted to retain the quarterly monitoring approach currently undertaken.

113 REPORTS FROM OUTSIDE BODIES The Committee considered

Council on outside bodies. A final version of the Summary of Comments had been be circulated before the meeting.

RESOLVED That the effectiveness of current partnerships and external representation in meeting

Age Concern accepted the comment that we should check if they wish for

further representation

O&S.41

Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee Cllr Southern raised concerns around the closure of the canal due to a slippage. Cllr Ambler suggested that where Members have concerns, they can be raised with the Member representative but in this specific case, the Committee may wish to invite them to a future Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting.

Blackwater Valley Recreation and Countryside Management Committee

wished to recognise the very good work of this group which is broadly a voluntary group.

Hampshire Buildings Preservation Trust The Committee recommended that

attendance on this outside board be reconsidered. Sentinel Housing Association Members recognised the importance on an

ongoing and effective board membership with Sentinel.

The Vine Day Centre Members queried whether Yateley Industries also provided similar services within the district.

114 SAFER NORTH HAMPSHIRE AND PROPOSED MERGER OF

COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIPS This report summarised how the community safety arrangements had been working

since the community safety teams from Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor councils were established as one shared service under the umbrella of Safer North Hampshire in November 2012, and presented a proposal relating to the merger of the three district-based Community Safety Partnerships into one Strategic Partnership for North Hampshire.

RESOLVED 1 The outcomes of the first year of operation of Safer North Hampshire as set

out in Appendix 1were noted. 2 That the principle of a merger of the three Community Safety Partnerships as

set out in the report be supported, and that the final details of the arrangements to be presented to Council in due course, be noted subject to the following comments:

That it is clear what controls will be in place to protect the interests of

the different local authorities (including budgets) that form part of the partnership.

That it is clear what mechanisms are in place to dissolve the joint CSP

should any partner wish to withdraw or the options to not proceed with any specific initiative, should they wish to do so.

115 CABINET WORK PROGRAMME The Cabinet Work Programme was considered.

O&S.42

116 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME The Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme was considered and it was suggested

that a future Committee should consider inviting the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee to provide a presentation on their work.

The meeting closed at 8.40pm