Agenda item

The Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Policy expired in 2019, and therefore has now been updated and reviewed. The new draft policy is attached at Appendix A.  The policy was under review in early 2020 but the impact on the service due to COVID meant that the review was delayed until 2021.

This has been consulted on internally and with key partner agencies working on anti-social behaviour including the Police, Hertfordshire County Council, Watford Community Housing Trust and Thrive Homes.

The Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Policy expired in 2019, and was now being updated and reviewed. The new draft policy was attached to the report at Appendix A.  The policy was being reviewed in early 2020 but the impact on the service due to Covid meant that the review was delayed until 2021.

The policy had been consulted on internally and with key partner agencies working on anti-social behaviour including the Police, Hertfordshire County Council, Watford Community Housing Trust and Thrive Homes.

The Head of Community Partnerships introduced the report and advised that the policy had been updated in line with changing Government policy and reflected new issues in the community such as cuckooing and serious violence.  It now incorporated new requirements for ASB case review which was known as community trigger giving victims in the community details on the way complaints are dealt with, more information on reporting tools and methods which was in line with our customer experience strategy.  Issues which constituted ASB had been expanded on in the policy and the way ASB was dealt with across other Council departments was also now included.  In the past 18 months over 400 high to medium risk cases had been dealt which was more than 70 cases on the previous time period.  There was now a full time ASB Officer working with the Community Safety Intervention Officer as well as a functioning Youth Violence Service being delivered across Hertfordshire.  The Herts MIND network service had been expanded delivering community support and mental health support to residents.  The policy covered four different areas prevention, early intervention, support and enforcement with details provided in the covering report and policy.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke on this item.

The Chair said these were not problem tenants but families without a home.

The Head of Community Partnerships said in terms of the policy, it is process based, but does detail victim support. There was are also a lot of other support services for victims that we work with in partnership and which was mentioned in the report and policy on what we can do and what support can be provided. 

In terms of the process of dealing with an ASB case the Community Safety Invention Officer advised that with regard to Jack Prescott Place this was a new building that had not been welcomed by the Community at first.  People that had been housed there had been homeless and some of the families living there had complex needs.  The Community Safety and Housing Teams had worked with local residents to support them and would continue to do this.  They could not comment on the CCTV query but the Head of Community Partnerships would look at this if more information could be provided on the issue.  The Council wanted to see the best outcome for everyone and worked tirelessly to get the best outcome for both the residents and the families living in the accommodation. 

Members raised the following:

A Member said it was good that Jack Prescott Place had come up in the context of Anti-Social Behaviour as they had been involved and been made aware by residents of numerous problems associated with the construction and subsequent occupation and issues faced by residents.  They were glad that all the Members had heard the speaker and were now aware of some of the problems.  It was hoped that Officers and Members could work together with the local community to help get the problems resolved. 

A Member raised the following points:

In the report Officers had referenced that the policy expired in 2019 could Members be advised when in 2019 it expired?

Does the Council have a statutory duty to have an Anti-Social Behaviour policy? 

What were the consequences of the Council not having a policy?  Would the absence of a policy be part of the reasons why the ongoing issues identified at the meeting tonight had arisen?

The Head of Community Partnerships said that the policy expired at the end of 2019 which was when it was due for review.  The review had begun but due to Covid it had to stop as officers had to provide other support.  The Community Safety Team had as a result of Covid seen increased ASB pressures. It did not mean there was no policy, it was just being reviewed and updated.  The Council were still working to the existing policy for all our processes.  Three Rivers were unusual in having a policy as it was not a Statutory Duty. The Community Safety Partnership have a statutory duty to work with other local agencies to tackle crime and disorder.  In Three Rivers Community Safety is a priority and had a policy so that we could ensure we work along set guidelines and which included things around ASB and the Crime and Policing Act 2014.

The Chair added that ASB complaints had been made on the area being discussed tonight about the residents living in the properties and some very unpleasant comments had been made.  There had been some misunderstandings which had arisen and some ASB had been made to the residents living in the temporary accommodation.  The Council’s ASB Team had received a commendation from the Police which was very rare and showed we take ASB very seriously.

Further Member comments were made as follows:

Were Officers able to advise how different this policy was from the previous policy? 

On the detail under item 2 in the policy, and the examples of ASB, one was on hoarding and they were puzzled by this as if someone hoards things in their house they could not see how that was ASB but if outside this would be relevant. 

Why was social media posting excluded from the ASB definition because clearly hate crime online was a very real issue and should be included.

DIY and Car repairs late at night should we not have in the early hours of the morning or overnight and not just limited to late at night.

The Head of Community Partnerships responded as follows:

In the presentation to the Committee the changes had been highlighted to Members.  The changes are outlined in point 2 of the report including changes in ASB Case Reviews, types of ASB, methods of reporting and emerging issues that we now have to deal with such as cuckooing and serious violence which does have an impact on ASB.

In terms of hoarding it usually relates to outside but there had been occasions when it related to inside.  The Council can provide support to the residents from the charities who work with us in partnership and are part of our network. 

The Community Safety Intervention Officer advised that with regard to social media this had not been included in the policy as anything that does come to our attention i.e. a resident living next door to someone who hears their music playing and could post something like “I wish they would shut up they have been playing their music all night” that type of complaint would not be dealt with through social media.  Our advice would be that if you are on a social media platform and don’t want to hear that your name had been spoken about or referred to you should come away from that or block the person who was saying things about you.  If a hate crime had taken place in the posting this would be logged and should be reported to the police.  If a resident called to say they were depressed by the comment or someone was saying real horrible things about them we would look to bring in MIND support.  Officers look at every case individually and assess what is required for each case.  The Police would always be contacted if there was any hate crime.

On car repairs officers would review the timings included in the policy.

A Member thought that if the comments on social media were not hateful enough for the matter to be referred to the Police it could still do considerable damage to someone.  If the posts happened two or three times it could create a narrative about someone and they may not be brave enough to come back on the post.  The Member was looking to try and have ways to mitigate some of the hate caused by social media.  They referred to Section 6 of the policy on the aims and responsibilities in responding to ASB and referred to a situation where someone was suffering ASB and we had been unable to stop it and asked how would a complainant get a resolution. 

The Community Safety Intervention Officer advised that the speaker had been provided with a variety of mechanisms to solve the ASB issues which included group meetings, facilitated discussions, mediation and other actions.

A Member stated they had needed to contact the Community Safety Team who had gone above and beyond dealing with a matter and were one of the best teams the Council had got.  Another Member said if there were any ASB issues the residents should call 101. 

Councillor Phil Williams moved the recommendation as set out in the report, seconded by Councillor Chris Lloyd who wished to thank the officers for all the work they had done on the report and policy.

A Member made further comments stating they did appreciate the work by Community Safety and Housing and for providing information they had requested when asked and hoped they would continue to engage with the Member.  They raised more points on the policy with regard to the wording of item 2 and the sentence starting “Anti-social behaviour (ASB) can be difficult to define and there are some types of issues that would not constitute ASB” and the sentence at the end which started “The type of issues that may not constitute ASB include….”  “Would not” and “may not” were not the same thing and requested when the policy came to Full Council the word “would” be replaced with “may” as this allows for more scope.  They asked for more information on the threshold on an ASB case review and when more action would be taken. 

The Community Safety Intervention Officer advised that the threshold was 3 complaints of a similar nature within a 6 month period.  The ASB complaints do not get to the threshold as every complaint that comes into Three Rivers never hit the threshold as officers are proactive in dealing with the matter as soon as complaint is received.  The ASB Group (ASBAG) and the Partnership in Three Rivers was so tight that if an email was sent to the Community Safety team or a call made they would always get a response.  The residents would never hit a threshold because officers are proactive.

The Head of Community Partnerships advised that Community Trigger or ASB case review was National Government Legislation.  Some requirements had changed within that which were now included in the policy.  Residents can call a multi-agency meeting if a case had not been dealt with.  There was more information provided on the website about how the process works. 

A Member wished to state that the Committee were here tonight to discuss the policy.  In terms of dealing with social media, higher authorities were not able to deal with this and it was over ambitious to suggest that we can solve the problem.  What we do at Three Rivers was deal with the source of the problem and not the social media that follows it and by doing this it takes away the problem.  They felt the Council were doing more than other bigger organisations on this.  What was formerly known as the Community Trigger and had been renamed as ASB case review and had a slightly wider remit.  In Three Rivers we have not had one Trigger/Review in 15 years.

The recommendations proposed would be checked by officers before being presented to Council in October and if it was possible the proposed changes would be included in the policy.

On being put to the Committee the Chair declared the motion CARRIED the voting being unanimous.

RECOMMEND:

That the Three Rivers District Council Anti-Social Behaviour Policy 2021 be recommend to Council.