To receive a presentation from the Lead Member for Community – Councillor Mrs Kay Berry.  

37.1           The Mayor invited Councillor Berry, Lead Member for Community, to make her presentation.  

37.2           The presentation covered the following key points:

·      Community Safety Review – Safer Gloucestershire – there is currently a Community Safety Partnership (CSP) for each District; however that means that each CSP works in isolation. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner had commissioned a review to look at how community safety was delivered across the County. A Steering Group had been established to look at how a consistent approach could be taken across Gloucestershire to ensure that intelligence was shared between all partners and that Countywide priorities were considered. It was also intended that good practice should be shared, particularly with regard to Domestic Homicide Reviews, but still recognising that individual Districts and Boroughs were responsible for delivering community safety individually within their areas.

·      Community Safety Review – Safer Gloucestershire – Structure – the idea was that this would not take a hierarchical approach but there had been general agreement that there were too many small thematic groups so some would be merged (there were some which were statutory and as such those would remain in place). Our CSP had been suspended pending the outcome of the review and also due to a lack of strategic representatives to attend the meetings; there was now a need to consider how community safety was undertaken locally and work on that had already commenced. Safer Gloucestershire would feed into all of the other appropriate bodies and they would feedback through the Local Forums.

·      Domestic Homicide Reviews – currently the reviews were overseen by the Borough Council but that caused problems when the crime was in one place, the victim in another and the police in another – it was considered a Countywide approach – led by the County Council – was needed. The Countywide strategic partnership would take over full responsibility for decision-making around establishing a Domestic Homicide Review, appointing a Chair/report author, monitoring the progress of the review and holding agencies to account for their recommendations and actions. Local CSPs would still have considerable input to the process. It would also improve information sharing and learning from Domestic Homicide Reviews in a more timely fashion.

·      Emergency Planning – in the last year, key Officers had undertaken refresher training, or training to a higher level, in emergency planning; a rest centre exercise had been held at Tewkesbury School in February 2017; a flood team leaders meeting chaired by the Chief Executive had been introduced; and the Business Continuity Management Plans had been reviewed, updated and finalised. In the next 12 months the Council would review the emergency response plan; review the Council’s flood plan; carry out a Business Continuity Management exercise; and carry out a review of rest centres to ensure the correct level of capacity was available. There was a problem with finding venues to become rest centres and Officers were working on a plan to try and ensure there were enough available and that they were both flexible and reactive.

·      Safeguarding Children and Vulnerable Adults – all staff had undertaken detailed safeguarding training and it had been incorporated into the induction of new staff. The Head of Community Services had taken over as the lead safeguarding officer for the Council and the management team received and considered quarterly safeguarding updates. In addition volunteers were being briefed on safeguarding issues and a safeguarding element was being introduced into all corporate reports.  Elected Members needed to fully understand their responsibilities around safeguarding and a session for that was being prepared. The Lead Member emphasised that the Council had strengthened its procedures in this regard but she was of the view that more work needed to be done with Members and Parishes. With this in mind, the Head of Community Services would be developing a short training programme for Borough Members and an item would be placed on the Agenda for the next Town and Parish Council Seminar. She understood that the online training circulated recently had been difficult for Members to access but she was aware that ICT were working to fix the glitch so that all Members could complete it.

·      Community Development – there were three Community Development Officers that covered the Borough which was split into the north-west, south and east areas. The aim was to help communities to help themselves. This was done by facilitating, supporting, engaging, empowering, enabling and encouraging as well as helping to unlock the potential, skills and enthusiasm within communities.

·      Some Examples of Community Development – bringing key agencies together to learn from each other and share expertise i.e. the Voluntary and Community Sector Forum and Public Service Centre Locality Forum; community led planning e.g. identifying needs and support communities through the planning process / Section 106; getting closer to communities by basing Community Development Officers in Parish Council Offices/community buildings; place approach – understanding our communities better and identifying priorities for the future – this had been a great success so far and needed to carry on as well as feeding into the Community Safety Partnership; understanding local issues e.g. working with the Citizens’ Advice Bureau to identify concerns; supporting local networking e.g. bringing key agencies and the Voluntary and Community Sector together; supporting young people e.g. allocating £50,000 in County Council grants and children and young people network; Community Right to Bid – listing assets of community value; supporting community groups e.g. governance, development, facility development; and addressing emerging issues e.g. financial inclusion. The Lead Member indicated that she could provide information on the community right to bid process if any Member needed it – she felt that people did not necessarily understand what it was for and that, if a right to bid was actioned, it suspended development for six months but the community had to find the funding to purchase the building upon which they had established the right to bid.

·      Benefits – a better engaged community; a better place for residents to live; organisations were encouraged to work better together and more efficiently; building resilience in communities; building a rapport with Parish and Town Councils; sharing good practice; getting communities ready to meet the growth agenda; addressing longstanding issues; gaining a positive reputation for the Council in the community; and giving the ‘Better for Customers’ message.

·      Community Funding – since the Community Funding Officer had been appointed in July 2015, the Council had supported community groups in Tewkesbury Borough to obtain £760,093 in external grants and, in turn, this had helped lever in additional external funding for the Borough. External funding had been awarded from local and national trust funds, National Lottery and local funding sources – last year 349 community groups in the Borough had been supported with funding advice and the funding process. Organisations that had benefited included charities, community groups, sports groups, schools and churches. In June 2017, a successful funding fair had been held, which over 100 people had attended, and had been a chance for community groups in the Borough to talk face to face with funders. The event had received a lot of positive feedback. Funding support had provided positive media and supported the ‘helping communities to help themselves’ message.

37.3           During the discussion which ensued, a Member thanked the Lead Member for her informative presentation and noted that a number of excellent successes had been achieved; however, she expressed concern about the Community Safety Partnership and how it would work when there was no local organisation. She asked for reassurance that the local priorities would not get lost when the smaller Community Safety Partnerships worked with the larger Countywide group. In response, the Lead Member advised that there had been a problem keeping the Neighbourhood Coordination Groups going due to a lack of police manpower to attend meetings – this meant the discussions had not been as productive as they could be. People were still considering how to deal with it but the current thinking was that the Countywide Group – Safer Gloucestershire – would meet twice a year and that would provide the opportunity for the Neighbourhood Coordination Groups to input their ideas. In addition, the Head of Community Services explained that the priorities would be addressed Countywide but they were not all relevant to all areas so there would also be priorities specific to particular Districts.

37.4           In terms of safeguarding, this was currently an important issue in the County but the Deputy Chief Executive assured Members that the Council did have satisfactory policies and processes in place. There was, of course, always room for improvement and training would be provided as stated in the Lead Member’s presentation. A recent audit of the Council’s safeguarding arrangements had found them to be satisfactory, which in audit terms was fine, but Officers were considering how a rating of ‘good’ could be achieved. A Member indicated that both the County Council and Gloucestershire Constabulary had recently received ‘hard hitting’ reports about how they looked after children and he hoped that lessons were being learnt. The Lead Member went on to indicate that the Council had previously arranged two safeguarding sessions for Councillors but they had been cancelled due to poor attendance; as previously stated, further sessions would be arranged and she urged Members to attend if they could.

37.5           Referring to the emergency plan, a Member indicated that his Parish Council had an emergency plan and an emergency team but it did not cover flooding which seemed strange – he felt it was the responsibility of all Members to make themselves aware of the measures which were in place for their own communities and ensure they knew the procedure and who to call in an emergency. The Lead Member agreed with this view and confirmed that Tewkesbury Borough’s emergency plan covered everything - even a tsunami coming up the River Severn.

37.6           A Member questioned whether the Council undertook suicide reviews as well as domestic homicide reviews. In response, the Head of Community Services explained that there was no duty for the Council to carry out a review of suicides in the same way as homicides but it was good practice to look at cases to see if lessons could be learnt. This had been discussed by the domestic homicide review group, as had the need to review near miss cases. Whilst it would not be possible to look at every one in detail, as the reviews were very time consuming, a selection would be discussed with the results shared Countywide to see where improvements could be made. In terms of suicide, the Lead Member explained that this was a real problem nationally, particularly in younger men, usually under the age of 25 years. The funding had recently stopped but the Council used to get money from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner to fund suicide prevention schemes in Winchcombe and Bishop’s Cleeve Schools. The scheme had worked with a number of vulnerable young people and she hoped it had been helpful to them.

37.7           Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the presentation from the Lead Member for Community be                        NOTED.