Agenda and minutes

The Board was advised that one matter had arisen which required immediate attention by the Board (minute SAF25 refers).  Therefore, pursuant to Section 100 B (4) and 100 E, and due to the need to progress talks with another party, the Chairman rules that the item be considered as a matter of urgency.

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2012 were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Board was advised that no public questions had been received.

The minutes from the last Safer Halton Partnership (SHP) meeting held on 15 May 2012 were presented to the Board for information.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities and a DVD which gave the Members an update on the introduction of a Neighbourhood Resolution Panel in the Grange ward of Halton.

The Board was advised Halton was one of the 15 English areas to pilot a Neighbourhood Resolution Panel, designed to resolve anti-social behaviour and low-level crime affecting local communities. (For example neighbour disputes, noise & nuisance parking).

The successful bid had been produced by the Community Safety Team and Halton Housing Trust and had been submitted at the end of October 2011. The pilot was located in the Grange Ward and would run until 2014 and would be evaluated by the Ministry of Justice.

It was reported that the panel would deliver agreed restorative justice outcomes and could include perpetrators agreeing to carry out tasks that made amends to the victim or wider community. They were designed to give victims and the community much more of a say in the punishments that were given out.

Panels would be made up of volunteers trained in restorative justice, who would facilitate meetings between victim and offenders. Five volunteer facilitators had already successfully completed the training.

The Board was further advised that some areas had already been using restorative justice, concentrating on youth offending. The Neighbourhood Resolution Panels would extend this approach, which could be applied to any low level crime and was open to adults and youths

The benefits of the Neighbourhood Resolution Panel were as follows:-

·       Divert offenders/perpetrators from the Criminal Justice System;

·       Speed (4-6 week turn around);

·       More victim involvement;

·       Improve perceptions of complaint handling;

·       Improve/decrease re-offending rates; and

·       Free up time for more pressing work for housing and police officers.

The reforms built on the lessons learned from the response to last summer’s disturbances and were intended to modernise criminal justice services, speed up court cases, improve transparency so that the public could understand how the system worked, and engage local communities in the judicial process.  In addition, it was also reported that the pilot was open to accept referrals from the partner agencies.

    The following comments arose from the discussion:-

·       The Board noted the positive impact the pilot had in the Grange Ward both on the victims and the perpetrators and that the scheme empowered the community to take ownership and reduce the fear of crime in their area;

·       Clarity was sought on how the volunteers were recruited and how their suitability for the role had been assessed?  In response, it was reported that Officers had undertaken a presentation in the community to raise awareness of the scheme and enable individuals to become involved in the process. Several individuals, who lived/worked in the community had been interviewed and had successfully completed the course; and

·       The Board welcomed the alternative approach being used to address low level crime and anti-social behaviour;

·       It was noted that Cheshire Police had been fully involved in the restorative justice process and being updated on the progress on a regular basis;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources regarding the Quarter Monitoring Reports for the first quarter to June 2012.  The report detailed progress against service objectives / milestones and performance targets and described factors affecting the service for:

·       Communities Directorate – Community Safety, Drug & Alcohol Action Teams, Domestic Violence and Environmental Health (Extracts); and

·       Area Partner indicators from the Police, Fire and Probation Services were stated, where available.

The Board was advised that after consultation with Members, and in line with the revised Council’s Performance Framework for 2012/13 (approved by the Executive Board), the reports had been simplified with an overview report provided for the Safer Priority.  This identified key developments, emerging issues and the key objectives / milestones and performance indicators.  However, the full departmental quarterly reports were available in the Members Information Bulletin to allow Members to access the reports as soon as they were available and within six weeks of the quarter end.  The Departmental quarterly monitoring reports were also available via the link in the report.

An update Extract of the red and amber performance indicators was also circulated at the meeting.

The Board congratulated Officers on the improvements that had been made to the report indicating that they were easier to read and more accessible

The following comments arose from the discussion:_

·            Page 20 – DEFRA – Concern was raised at the issue of dog faeces in Halton; that there was only two dog wardens for the whole of Halton and what further action could be taken to address this matter. 

In response, it was reported that enforcement officers were also responsible for this matter and there were seven in Halton.  It was reported that if the Officers were aware of dog owners who were repeatedly fouling in public areas, the individual concerned would be contacted and resources would be targeted to that particular area. 

In reply, clarity was sought on how often the byelaw was reviewed and it was suggested that when reviewed consideration be given to a condition being added to the byelaw that dog owners carry equipment to remove any faeces immediately.  The Board agreed that this be referred to the Environment and Urban Renewal Policy and Performance Board for consideration/action; and

·            Page 21 – CCC24 – Reduce Alcohol related hospital Admissions – Clarity was sought on how the targets were set and an explanation sought on the direction of travel in light of the 11/12 actual figures and the 12/13 target. In response, it was reported that this indicator had been calculated on the actual performance over the last few years and that it represented a three year rolling average. It was also reported that the targets were set in consultation with Cheshire Police and in January the Safer Halton Partnership receive a full report on the rationale to every target to ensure a clear audit trail etc.  After discussion, it was agreed that the Safer Halton Partnership would give consideration to how these  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy & Resources which informed Members of the roles and responsibilities of the Risk and Emergency Planning Team.

The Board was advised that the Emergency Planning Team currently consisted of three staff (Principal Emergency Planning Officer (currently vacant due to a recent retirement) and two Emergency Planning Officers).  The team provided services to the whole Council and was the initial contact for any Major or Serious Incident within Halton.  When a call was received from Cheshire Police, the Emergency Planning Officer (EPO) on call made an initial assessment of the situation and then, if necessary, would contact a First Responder. First Responders were essentially all Operational Directors (OD) and Divisional Managers (DM) from across all departments who would take it in turns (on a monthly basis) to be on-call to respond to the EPO and subsequently instigate various processes to enable the Council to respond positively and quickly to the incident. 

The Board was further advised that during office hours this could be the most appropriate OD or DM for the incident, but outside of office hours this would be from the list of available First Responders.  Strategic Directors also took it in turns to be available for calls from the EPO. In addition, it was reported that, in consultation with the First Responder a decision may be taken to open a Local Authority Emergency Centre (LAEC) to respond to the incident.

It was reported that the Risk Management Team prepared, co-ordinated and monitored all the Risk Registers for the Council, highlighting particular risks to the Authority to ensure approach measures were implemented.

The Board noted the numerous responsibilities of the team set out in paragraphs 4.1 – 4.7 of the report.

In conclusion, it was reported that it was not possible to give the Board an update on Creamfields as the briefing had not as yet taken place.

The following comments arose from the discussion:-

·       It was suggested that Members of the Board observe a test/exercise in the future to obtain a greater understanding of how the Emergency Centres operated;

·       The Board noted the sequence of events that would take place when there was an major incident;

·       The chairman suggested that a seminar be arranged for all Members in order to raise their awareness on the risk and emergency planning service;

·       It was reported that good working relationships were in place with cross border agencies / organisations. Recently, emergency planning had scheduled a cross border multi agency meeting with Cheshire to review the Cheshire roles and responsibilities within the COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Pentagon Fine Chemicals Multi Agency Response Plan.  It was also reported that as the site was based in Merseyside, it had a predominantly SE wind, which in the event of a major accident happening on the site, would impact on the Halton community i.e Widnes.  Therefore cross border roles and responsibilities needed to be agreed and in place; and

·       It was agreed that the designated telephone  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which gave the Members information on how well Halton’s food businesses were performing on the National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme.  The report set out how well food businesses perform overall, what action was taken in relation to failing premises and some of the challenges to securing full compliance.

The Board was advised that Halton was the first authority in Cheshire and Merseyside to launch the National Food Hygiene Rating scheme in April 2011. Previously Halton had operated its own “scores on the doors” scheme since 2007.  The following premises were included in the scheme:-

·             Takeaways;

·             Caterers including home caterers;

·             Restaurants;

·             Grocery Shops;

·             Supermarkets;

·             Staff Canteens;

·             Schools and other public buildings; an

·             Pubs and Clubs.

It was reported that In total there were 1051 registered Food premises in Halton. 822 were included in the National Food Hygiene Rating Scheme.  The local authority would publish all scores on the internet because it was considered public information. The ratings were published at www.food.gov.uk/ratings

The Board was further advised that it was not compulsory for a business to display the score on their premises. In practice the premises that scored 4 and 5 were happy to display their scores. However some businesses with 3 stars were reluctant to display their score. This was disappointing as consumer research by the FSA suggests that customers would be happy to eat in a premises that had obtained scores of 3 and above. In general premises with a score of 0, 1 and 2 rarely display their score.

It was reported that the score was based on the hygiene risk rating given to a business during the last food hygiene inspection by the Food Safety Team in Environmental Health. The rating was based on the following three key criteria;

·             How hygienically the food was handled;

·             The structure and cleanliness of the building; and

·             How well the business was managed and its track record.

Businesses were awarded a score from 5 to Zero. In practice, each score meant the following:-

·             5 - The premises were fully compliant with the law

·             4 - The premises were essentially compliant with the law but with some minor contraventions that were not critical to food safety. No follow up was needed from the environmental health department;

·             3 - Overall satisfactory standard – premises need to make some minor improvements but these were not critical to food safety. Businesses would receive written advice but it was unlikely to be a priority for revisit;

·             2 - A number of contraventions had been identified – improvement was necessary to prevent a fall in standards. Follow up action in accordance with enforcement policy. Premises likely to be subject to a revisit to ensure action had been taken;

·             1 - A number of major contraventions had been identified some of which if not addressed may be critical to food safety. Premises subject to enforcement action in accordance with enforcement policy. Premises would be subject to a revisit to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which gave Members information on the progress on the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs).

The Board was advised that the first elections of Police and Crime Commissioners were scheduled to occur on 15 November 2012. PCCs would be elected for four years and would take office 22 November 2012.

The Board was further advised that as at 4 September 2012, the Labour party had selected Cllr John Stockton, the Conservative party had selected Mr John Dwyer to stand for PCC in Cheshire and there was one Independent Member Sarah Flannery. In order that all candidates were treated equitably and had access to the same information, requests for information and their responses were being logged and published on the Authority’s website. The Electoral Commission had published Guidance for Candidates which was available from (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance/resources-for-those-we-regulate/candidates-and-agents/police-and-crime-commissioner-elections ). In addition, it was reported that nominations for PCC could be submitted until the 19^th October 2012 deadline.

It was reported that as of 4 September 2012, there were three candidates; Councillor John Stockton (Labour), Mr John Dwyer (Conservative) and Sarah Flannery (Independent).

The Board noted the Police and Crime Panel, the PCC elections, candidates and communications update set out in paragraphs 6.4 to 10.2 of the report.

The following comments arose from the discussion:-

·             It was reported that an indication of future funding was not as yet definite.  However, it was hoped that the funding would be known in the next few weeks; and

·             The Board noted the update on the Shadow Police and Crime Panel; that they had met and eventually the number of representatives from each area had been agreed; that a Councillor from Warrington would be chairing the group and when the Panel was formally constituted, there would be no objection to allowing Cheshire East to have a co-optee.

RESOLVED: That the report and comments raised be noted.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which outlined the key issues and progression of the agenda for safeguarding ‘vulnerable adults’ (i.e. adults at risk of abuse) in Halton.

The Board was advised that the following posts had been established in the 12 month pilot for an integrating Safeguarding Unit (ISU):-

·       Principal Manager – Paula Gandy;

·       Safeguarding / Dignity Co-ordinator – Tracy Ryan;

·       Social Workers – Rachel Taylor and Jimmy Bush; and

·       Positive Behaviour Analyst – Emma Hulme.

The Board was further advised of the following posts that were in the process of being finalised:-

·       2 x RGN; and

·       GP Clinical Lead (currently Dr Lyon supporting as an interim measure).

The Board noted the various activities that had taken place and were set out in paragraphs 3.3 to 3.11 of the report.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

The Board was advised that Councillor P Wallace was currently undertaking a review which would be considering dispersed housing as one of the options for people who were victims of domestic abuse. 

The Chairman reported that dispersed housing created difficulties for Cheshire Police and the individuals concerned, as the location could be compromised.  When compromised, he reported the individual/family had to move and the accommodation could not be used again.

The Board was advised that Halton had always preferred a hostel as a solution to the issues relating to domestic violence. The Chairman requested that the Board support that the hostel would not be substituted by dispersed housing.  After considerable discussion, the Board agreed to support this option.

RESOLVED: That the Board recommend to the Chairman of the Homeless Service Update Review, Councillor Wallace, that in addressing incidents of domestic violence, the hostel remained as the preferred option and was not substituted by dispersed housing.