Skip to main content

Agenda item

Community Safety Partnership

Purpose          

To note the activities of the West Oxfordshire Community Safety Partnership during 2025/2026 and the latest insights around crime and the fear of crime in West Oxfordshire and the county as a whole. 

 

Recommendation

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee resolves to:

1.         Note the report

Minutes:

Councillor Geoff Saul, Executive Member for Housing and Social Care, introduced the report on the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) and made the following points:

 

  • The CSP was a statutory requirement of the Council that had resulted from the Crime and Disorder Act 1988.
  • The requirement placed responsibility on principle authorities to formulate and implement a strategy and plan that reduced crime and disorder (including antisocial behaviour), combated the misuse of drugs, reduced reoffending, and prevented involvement in and instances of serious violence. 
  • The CSP comprised the Council, Police, Fire and Rescue, health partners and probation services.
  • A rolling plan had been running from 2024-27 and actions were refreshed annually to address priorities.
  • Priorities in the rolling plan were: serious violence; drugs and alcohol; domestic abuse and violence against women and girls; rural acquisitive crime; antisocial behaviour; fraud; modern slavery; counter terrorism.
  • Within the eight priorities particular attention was to be paid to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls as well as antisocial behaviour.
  • The previous focus on rural acquisitive crime had helped to reduce this crime by approximately 20%. This was therefore considered to be less of a priority in the upcoming plan.
  • The report presented a list of the activities that had been undertaken by the CSP.
  • Councillor Saul highlighted the theatre-based violence against women and girls project which was in collaboration with the Council’s Youth Development Officer.
  • Section 8.1 of the report showed the county wide projects that were being supported.
  • The Police Funding Settlement had shown the Home Office grant was reduced by £9m. This would lead to a likely reduction of 40% to CSP funding which would mean a need to review the programme.

 

In the discussion that followed the following questions were raised and comments made:

 

  • The recorded decline in most serious crime, other than hate crime, was not matched by the public perception. The Committee queried what the Council’s role was to address such an incorrect public perception. It was noted that the CSP was required to be vigilant and ensure that clear messaging was being disseminated. If well briefed with accurate information, councillors also had a role to play to communicate with their constituents. The Executive Member noted that there was a public dialogue with TVP, who had attended parish meetings. In general, the district was considered a safe place to live.
  • Surges in vehicular crime had been noted in specific areas of the district which had contradicted the reported fall in rural acquisitive crime. The Committee queried if there was further granular detail to the figures provided for this crime as well as fly-tipping and machine theft. In the discussion it was suggested that public reporting of this crime was not always happening and this may impact figures presented from TVP. The importance of reporting crime to ensure action and recognition by the TVP was reiterated. Officers reminded the Committee that rural acquisitive crime had remained on the CSP priority list despite it being less of a focus to other priorities. The Rural Crime Taskforce had been very active which had meant there was less of a need to focus on this by the CSP. 
  • The Committee noted that it was regrettable that the funding was being cut. The reduction in funding likely meant a cut in roles which could mean a lack of coordination of meaningful actions.     
  • The impact of the proposed funding cuts was explored with regard to the officer roles that facilitated the work of the CSP. Members encouraged officers to keep them, as well as town and parish councils, up to date with the specific impact of the cuts to funding and implications. Officers explained that the funding settlement came to Oxfordshire and was then distributed to CSPs. When the impact of cuts to the programme had been assessed further communication would be arranged to members.
  • The position on the CSP priority list of work and actions to tackle domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, which was a long standing and worsening issue in society, was addressed. Officers advised that this was one of the main focusses on the priority list in the coming year. The Council had contributed £24.5k to the Oxfordshire Domestic Abuse Service. The trend and statistics specific to domestic abuse in rural areas was explored. In rural areas it had been shown that cases lasted 25% longer. GP surgeries and religious spaces were very important safe spaces for victims of this crime. Sessions had taken place to help communities recognise cases of domestic abuse to enable reporting. Members queried where there were gaps in support for those in rural areas. Officers noted that there was a good countywide service however in rural areas there was a danger that the available services were in the district service centres and were therefore less accessible to those who could not drive or leave their area. Members were advised that free ongoing training on the area of domestic abuse was available on OSCB or OSAB websites.
  • Members questioned if there should be an education programme put in place to address the rise in hate crime and racial hate crime. Officers suggested that time should be taken to see what actions were being undertaken elsewhere as these could be used in the district before the Council commenced its own programmes.
  • Members congratulated officers on the Safe Places Scheme and asked if the numbers of these would be increased or remain following Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). It was suggested that within Oxfordshire other authorities had used this scheme and therefore it was hoped that this would be retained. It was a low-cost scheme and therefore could easily be expanded in location and time-frame terms.
  • More information on the opportunities being created for young people were requested. Officers noted that the introduction of the Youth Development Officer had enabled additional work to get into communities which had a positive impact and had created an improved youth offering. However, better infrastructure was needed for young people. Some funding was available from OCC for this work in addition to the Council’s own grant funding. The Action Plan for the CSP for the coming year would have more detail on the specifics of the work for young people. 
  • The Committee queried when the Police and Crime Commissioner role was to be abolished and who would take over the work and responsibilities that this position was currently responsible for. The exact end date for the abolition was not known, and it was not clear where the powers would be established.
  • Given the unexpected reduction in funding the Committee queried if the Council had the ability to find funding from discretionary funds to safeguard important projects. The Executive Member advised that there would need to be a strong case for this and that the Council was not in a position to cover the whole shortfall. However, a recommendation could be considered if made by the Committee. Members suggested that any funding should be allocated for specific officer roles.
  • The Committee explored the potential for partnerships with others to mitigate the impact of the upcoming funding cut. Options discussed included the potential to partner with the Cottsway Housing Domestic Abuse Safety Officer and health professionals. Officers would explore the effectiveness of the partnerships and return to the Committee on this suggestion. It was noted that the social housing providers had created a group to deal with antisocial behaviours in their associations which was positive.  
  • The Committee queried what the CSP was doing to boost confidence in reporting antisocial behaviour and what enforcement action was being taken in addition to PSPOs. Officers noted that boosting engagement was a priority for TVP and there had been a move to visiting properties which it was thought had helped reporting. Engagement with communities, such as attendance at parish meetings, was also considered important to boost confidence.
  • The Committee queried what involvement the Council had in Counter Terrorism. Officers advised that this was largely around Prevent and the use of appropriate reporting mechanisms. The Council also had a duty to engage with the Channel Panel.
  • The work and effectiveness of the City Council’s Problem Solving Officer was explored. Officers gave examples of the Officer’s work in the district which they felt was effective and had contributed to increasing the feeling of safety. Examples given included lighting and the antisocial behaviour review process. Officers considered that the work had been very valuable and intended to make more use of the officer.
  • The Committee requested more information on the work of the Community Safety Officer. The role was currently out for recruitment and would take a strategic view on the CSP as opposed to an operational one.
  • The Committee queried how the CSP would operate in the light of LGR. Officers advised that, while structures may change, the Council had a legal duty on the CSP and the partnership working that had been established was commonplace and would continue.
  • The Committee explored the potential connection of the CSPs identified priorities and the increase of housing in the district and questioned if an audit was appropriate to explore the potential for the existing trends identified to be exacerbated by the additional housing. Officers advised that within housing plans the Council had advocated for healthy place making and connectivity. TVP had also looked at aspects of developments to “design out crime”. However, financial viability did limit such aspects. Councillors suggested that deeds of variance could be used to ensure S106 and CIL funding was allocated to deal with these issues by, for example, paying for PSPOs. It was noted that this was a planning issue and that some policy wording did attempt to address this.

 

Following the discussion the Committee made the following recommendations:

  1. That officers assess which priority projects would be affected by the budget reduction from the Police and Crime Commissioner, and the Executive consider whether any of these priority projects can be funded by the Council’s own discretionary resources.
  2. That officers’ assessment of the impacts of the cuts to funding on priority projects details the impact in terms of the loss of officer roles rather than just cash values.
  3. That the Council writes to Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner to request that they reinstate funding being cut from the CSP.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages