Agenda item

This paper sets out elements of development and delivery by ‘Safer BCP’, the BCP Community Safety Partnership (CSP), and its constituent agencies. It provides Members with an update since the last report to Overview and Scrutiny Panel in January 2025.

The Local Government Act 2000 includes crime and disorder scrutiny as one of the functions the council must ensure its scrutiny arrangements cover. Sections 19 and 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and related regulations require the Council to have a committee with the functions of reviewing and scrutinising decisions and actions in respect of the discharge of crime and disorder functions by “responsible authorities”.

The specifics of the duty are set out in the Police and Justice Act 2006, which also allows members to refer any “local crime and disorder matter” raised with them by anyone living or working in their area, to the Crime and Disorder Committee. The Board designated as the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee must meet at least once every 12-month period to conduct the functions.

Guidance issued concerning how this role should be conducted include that:

• the role should be one of a critical friend, providing constructive challenge at a strategic level.

• the focus should be on the entire partnership and if issues arise that relate specifically to a particular partner agency, it may be more appropriate to refer such issues to the governing bodies of that organisation.

• the scrutiny of partners should be “in so far as their activities relate to the partnership itself.”

In the BCP area, the Overview and Scrutiny Board undertakes this function each December/January.

The presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix '?' to these Minutes in the Minute Book. The Board considered the paper which sets out elements of development and delivery by ‘Safer BCP’, the BCP Community Safety Partnership (CSP), and its constituent agencies. It provided Members with an update since the last report to Overview and Scrutiny Panel in January 2025. The Board was reminded that the Local Government Act 2000 includes crime and disorder scrutiny as one of the functions the council must ensure its scrutiny arrangements cover and the Board had been designated as the appropriate body for this function. The CSP’s statutory partners and duties were outlined, including strategic assessment, plan/monitoring, information sharing, reducing re?offending/substance misuse, and commissioning of Domestic Homicide Reviews. The priorities for 2025/26 were outlined, as reducing serious violence; reducing violence against women and girls; and reducing ASB and crime hot spots. There had been a general downward trend in sexual assaults, domestic abuse incidents, personal robbery, and knife crime. Reported ASB had decreased year?on?year. The Board was informed of the future work for the CSP which included continued funding for domestic abuse services and serious violence interventions; a national review of CSPs and impacts of forthcoming legislation were anticipated. Executive. A number of issues were discussed by the Board including:

• ASB reporting and data confidence: Assurance was sought that reduced figures did not simply reflect barriers to reporting. Dorset Police described actions to improve reporting confidence, while maintaining hotspot?led patrols, noted likely increases as confidence improves, and highlighted targeted operations.
• E?scooters/E?bikes: Members queried legality and retail practices. It was explained that rental e?scooters operated under authorised schemes with speed caps and licence checks, whereas privately owned e?scooters remained unlawful on public roads. Calls for national legislative clarity were noted.
• Noisy motorcycles / late?night nuisance: Concerns about specific corridors were raised. Police encouraged continued reporting to inform planned operations, outlined limitations of certain tactics for motorcycles, and described new tagging/spray tactics to support later identification. Use of ANPR where plates are visible was referenced.
• Community Patrol Groups: Questions were raised about an unregulated community group operating locally. Police stated that such entities were not endorsed due to concerns with operating models. The Council reported ongoing dialogue aimed at signposting to proper governance, safeguarding and insurance standards, whilst reiterating that commissioned/specialist services should not be replaced by unregulated activity.
• Future Changes and Scrutiny: It was observed that CSP arrangements may change significantly over the next 12 months as national policy develops. The Board indicated an intention to schedule future scrutiny of any proposed changes once guidance is clearer.
• Community cohesion: In response to questions, officers outlined a new externally funded community cohesion role to work with diverse communities, counter misinformation, progress the hate crime action plan, expand third?party reporting, and develop education resources with schools.
• Domestic abuse: An increase in high?risk cases referred to Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference, MARAC was discussed. Officers cited factors including recent police training and transition to a new risk assessment tool, potentially affecting risk categorisation. Safeguarding processes remained in place for victims and children, with perpetrator risk also addressed.
• Safe Places Scheme: Members sought information and avenues to champion the scheme locally. Officers confirmed expansion across BCP, inclusion of day/night?time venues, and signposting via the national Safe Places website, with communications being prepared to raise awareness.
• Retail Crime: Activity with Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and retailers was described, including evidence upload tools for CCTV, proactive arrests of repeat offenders, use of Criminal Behaviour Orders, CPS engagement, and tailored crime?prevention advice. Members asked that similar support be considered for non?BID areas with high shoplifting rates.

RESOLVED: That the annual report be noted.

Voting: Nem.Con.

The Board affirmed its intention in returning to the subject to scrutinise implications of national CSP reforms once proposals were published.