Agenda and minutes

Members and officers must declare any disclosable pecuniary interests in relation to any business on the agenda. Declarations should also be made at any stage such an interest becomes apparent during the meeting.

If in doubt contact the Legal or Democratic Services representative for this meeting.

Councillor Humphreys declared an interest as his wife was an employee of sussex police.

Councillor Glynn-Davies declared an interest as a victim of damage at her property within the previous few weeks.

To approve the minutes of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting of held on 7 September 2023, copies of which have been previously circulated.

The minutes of the meeting of the 7.09.2023 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman .

So as to provide the best opportunity for the Committee to provide the public with the fullest answer, questions from the public should be submitted by 12.00 noon on 27 November 2023

Where relevant notice of a question has not been given, the person presiding may either choose to give a response at the meeting or respond by undertaking to provide a written response within three working days.

Questions should be submitted to Democratic Services democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk

(Note: Public Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

A number of questions were submitted by members of the public who were not able to be present for the meeting. These questions focused on item 8, Interview with Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner; about visible police presence, the use of E Scooters and the treatment of young people. The Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Inspector undertook to respond with written answers to these questions.

Councillors who are not members of this committee can ask questions under CPR 12  Questions should be relevant to the committee where the question is being asked and also relevant to an item on the agenda. Please contact Democratic Services for more information

Members question time is 30 minutes and questions should be submitted no later than 12.00 noon on 27 November 2023.

Questions should be submitted to Democratic Services democratic.services@adur-worthing.gov.uk

(Note: Members’ Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

A number of questions were submitted by members that focused on item 8, Interview with Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner. These questions asked about police recruitment figures, violence against women and girls (VAWG), crimes in Castle Ward, awareness of XL Bully dogs and use of E scooters on the promenade.

Members were informed that a total of 192 officers had been recruited in the 22/23 year, that they did not have specific data to hand on VAWG as those figures were bundled with other statistics but that Adur & Worthing had received some Safer Streets funding that was being put towards improving conviction rates. That all reported crimes were responded to and that the police chief could be emailed directly if this wasn’t the case. New bespoke programmes were targeting those guilty of prolific shop lifting and anti-social behaviour. Members were also informed that the police were responding to the new legislation surrounding XL Bully dogs and work with dog liaison officers and units was ongoing; that those who use E scooters in public spaces risked having them seized.

To consider any items the Chairman of the meeting considers to be urgent

There were no urgent items

There were no call-ins

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 8

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 8, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. This report provided some background and guidance to assist the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) in interviewing the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and the Chief Inspector, Sussex Police District Commander for Adur, Horsham and Worthing on local Police and crime issues covered within their remits. 

A Member asked, “As a councillor, I frequently am told by residents:

A. They have given up reporting because nothing gets done.

B. They never see a police officer at identified trouble spots.

C. Reporting online is difficult and laborious.

D. There is an unacceptable delay in response times, even to 999 calls.

What measures are being taken to improve this situation?”

Members were informed that response times to 101 calls had been an issue but were now amongst the best in the country. There were many ways to report crimes including 999, 101 numbers and an online system designed to capture all necessary information required by the police to pursue enquiries. That the police receive over 2100 calls every day and it was impossible to contact everyone but every report was followed up on. Members were informed that the police were evidence driven and to encourage people to continue to report crimes where they see them.

A Member asked, “I use a bicycle to tour my ward. It allows me an opportunity to identify problems and to stop and speak to residents. Why do ‘beat’ officers not use bicycles?”

Members were informed that a number of officers do use electric bikes to go out and engage with communities. Not all officers were comfortable on bikes and that some preferred to walk or take public transport.

A Member asked “How does the Sussex Police & Crime Commission define ‘Anti-Social Behaviour’?”

Members were informed that while there was no official national definition, the police and crime commissioner defined it as ‘a member of the public who feels they have suffered harassment, alarm or distress’

A Member asked “In the Sussex Police Crime Plan, under Paragraph 3.1, the number one public priority is to ‘Strengthen local policing, tackle crime & prevent harm’. Amongst other elements, this focuses on ‘Local, visible and accessible policing’, ‘Business & retail crime’, ‘Call handling times and contact’, and ‘Public engagement’. The PCC is now a good amount of time into the 2021-24 plan. How do you assess progress on these desired outcomes?”

Members were provided with an annual report that reflected on the previous years statistics and were informed the Police and Crime Commissioner spoke with the chief constable on a daily basis and had a sit down once a week to go through any issues. On a monthly basis a performance check with the chief was publicly available and the police force had internal boards that monitored and measured the work carried out.

A Member asked, “In light of the recent and  ...  view the full minutes text for item JOSC/54/23-24

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources copy attached as item 9

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 9, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to a signed copy of these minutes. This report provided the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) with information on the work of the Adur & Worthing Safer Communities Partnership (AWSCP) in order for JOSC to scrutinise the work of the AWSCP and interview the Adur Co-Chair of the Partnership. The Worthing Co-Chair was unable to be present at the meeting but would provide written responses to questions directed to them.

A Member asked, “In light of the recent and very public policing issues in Lancing and the many conflicting responses from our district representatives, how can we better support our officers and representatives to better manage the publics' expectations of officers and understanding of policy and to form a cohesive and supportive response afterward?”

Members were informed that the Partnership had recently developed and delivered training to members to increase understanding of reporting pathways, providing responses to public concerns following a high profile incident and managing expectations. 

In addition, the partnership had hosted multi-agency events for Members and the community, to explain the breadth and complexity of joint working that took place to tackle crime and disorder, which had been helpful in providing Members’ with balanced and informed responses to public concerns. The Safer Communities Team could provide further information on these approaches.

Members also asked about how housing issues contributed to problems like antisocial behaviour. Members were informed that it was difficult at times to pinpoint exact reasons for what caused antisocial behaviour, which the council was currently taking a holistic approach with multi agency responses, to understand the connection between poor housing and drivers of crime/antisocial behaviour.

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, report to follow.

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 10, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to the signed copy of these minutes. 

Due to exempt information contained within appendix 3 of this report, Members debated and then voted to go into a closed session, to hear the pre-submitted questions that related to the exempt appendix.

Outside of the closed session, Members asked about the sale of property assets and financial resilience. Members were informed that the Council had sold and was in the process of selling the EDF car park and caravan club site; that complications with residents rights of way at knightsbridge house were still being tackled and that the Council was working towards financial resilience.

Resolved: 

The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee noted the contents of the report.

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 11

The Committee had a report before it, attached as item 11 which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to the signed copy of these minutes. 

A Member asked, “In your briefing note it highlights Community Wealth Building and an Economy Workgroup being set up to meet regularly. Can you tell the committee who is part of this workgroup, if there are any external organisations involved and how the members of the workgroup were decided?”

Members were informed the working group was made up of senior officers and cabinet members and was set up in response to a principals paper published the previous December. While no external organisations were a part of the group, it was an aspiration to involve them.

A Member asked, “The council has issued a press release assuring the public that no 'frontline' services will be cut when addressing next year's budget. Could the cabinet member provide members with a list of services which he classes as 'frontline' and a list of services that he believes are not 'frontline'?

Members were informed that the term was often a political catchphrase and was difficult to define but there was a hierarchy between statutory and other services.

A Member asked “The budget savings paper proposes savings of £1.5m for Worthing and £2.52m for both councils through an organisational redesign. Can the cabinet member explain how he sees these huge savings being met without having to make members of staff redundant who deliver frontline services?”

Members were informed that it was difficult to second guess the savings proposals and the effect they would have on frontline services.

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 12

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 12, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to the signed copy of these minutes. This report outlined progress and plans for implementing the work contained in the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) Work Programme for 2023/24 and also included two scrutiny requests for consideration.

Members discussed the response from Southern Water that they would not attend a public meeting of the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee and representations that could be made to the water regulator. They also discussed the two proposals that had been submitted for the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee work programme. The first regarded the operation and role of PubWatch which could be found in Appendix B and the help Worthing council could provide to those with ‘metallic implants’ in their bodies in relation to ICNIRP Guidelines, which could be found in Appendix C.

Resolved:

The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed to

·           note the progress to deliver the JOSC Work Programme for 2023/24 as contained in the Appendix A; 

·           Make representations to OFWAT regarding the Southern Water decision not to attend JOSC;

·           The joint Chairs writing a letter to the Chief Executive of Southern Water expressing concern that Southern Water would not attend the public JOSC meeting;   

·           Add the scrutiny request detailed in appendix B to the work programme

·           Decline the scrutiny request detailed in appendix C because the issue related to matters that the Councils were not responsible for; and 

·           Recommend to the meetings of Adur District Council and Worthing Borough Council in December 2023 that the changes made to the JOSC Work Programme since it was agreed by both Councils in April 2023 be noted.

To consider a report by the Director for Sustainability and Resources, copy attached as item 13

The Committee had a report before it attached as item 13, which had been circulated to all Members and is attached to the signed copy of these minutes. This report set out the recommendations from the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JOSC) Working Group which was created as part of the JOSC Work Programme to review the Worthing Cultural Services procurement process undertaken in 2019. 

Resolved:

That the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee note the contents of the Working Group report and the findings and refer the report to the Worthing Joint Strategic Sub Committee. That Officers be commended for their work when making the decision to externalise the culture service in Worthing via a new charitable Organisation and for bringing the issues to a conclusion.