This resource is from the Committees section. This is report 4 of the 27 October 2005 meeting of the MPA Committee and presents two petitions; one in relation to the Safer Neighbourhood area and the other on Police Staff London Allowance.

Sections available here:

• Petitions
  • Summary
  • A. Recommendation
  • B. Supporting information
  • C. Race and equality impact
  • D. Financial implications
  • E. Background papers
  • F. Contact details

Petitions

Report: 4
Date: 27 October 2005
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

Two petitions will be presented to the Authority, one calling for the Safer Neighbourhood area in Upper Norwood to include the Gypsy Hill area and the other in relation to Police Staff London Allowance.

A. Recommendation

That members receive the petitions.

B. Supporting information

Safer Neighbourhoods petition

1. A petition signed by 440 people is to be presented at the Authority meeting in the following terms:

‘We the undersigned, being residents of the London Boroughs of Southwark, Lewisham, Croydon and Bromley, living and/or working in Upper Norwood where five boroughs border which other, have long been asking for more local police for local people. The decision to create and fund a Safer Neighbourhoods area providing more police in Upper Norwood is welcomed and has our full support.

We are alarmed that the area has not been drawn up so as to include Woodland Road, Jasper Road, Westow Hill, Crystal Palace Parade, Colby Road, Cawpore Street, Farquhar Road, Bowley Lane, Spinney Gardens and Dulwich Wood Avenue (between Colby Road and Farquhar Road).

These roads, together with Gipsy Hill railway station and the area bounded by the railway line, Salters Hill and Central Hill (including South Kitts terrace, Sainsbury Road, Antigua Close and Beacondale Road) – all parts of Upper Norwood essential for efficient, effective and above all FAIR policing for all residents of Upper Norwood - must be included in the area to get additional police in September 2005.

And we call upon the Metropolitan Police Authority to ensure full and effective cross boundary partnerships working for Upper Norwood’.

2. The contents of this petition appear to be similar to one submitted to the MPA in July 2005 by the chair of the Lambeth Crime Prevention Panel, but which was subsequently been withdrawn. The author of that petition met the Borough Commander concerned and was briefed about how the consultation had been carried out to define boundaries coupled with the decision making process around it. The facts around the development of a Safer Neighbourhood Team in College Ward Southwark, where some of the roads mentioned lie during the next phase of the safer neighbourhood programme and the accelerated roll out in 2006/7 also reassured the author that the roads mentioned would be covered by a team earlier than expected.

3. Croydon is the lead borough having overall responsibility for the new Safer Neighbourhood team. Croydon have worked in partnership with their local authority and the police boroughs of Lambeth and Bromley along with their councils and the MPS Safer Neighbourhood’s central team in developing the logistics of the new team and its geographical boundaries. The project has been developed through a series of Gold group meetings chaired by the Borough Commander at Croydon. The five Borough Commanders bordering Crystal Palace were part of an inaugural meeting to discuss taking the concept of a separate Safer Neighbourhood team forward. It was understood from this meeting that the Borough Commander for Lewisham decided there was no need for Lewisham to be included as a team was already in place in the area abutting the Crystal Palace area. It was also understood that the Borough Commander for Southwark decided that only a very small part of Southwark was in the proposed area and as its main policing issues were not at this location, they would not be involved. It was agreed by Commander Smith - TPHQ Safer Neighbourhoods, that the other three boroughs should manage the concept.

4. The petition mentions a collection of roads, which should be considered for inclusion in the area to be policed by the new Crystal Palace Safer Neighbourhood team. A number of exercises have taken place to define the geographic boundaries of the area, which have concentrated on the three boroughs involved. These have included:

• The production and analysis of a three year crime map.
• The three sector Inspectors defining a boundary from their personal knowledge of the area.
• A community meeting was held with key community members, local councillors and opinion formers along with members of the local media on the 12 July 2005. This was a consultation event, which was well attended.
• A Key Individual Network (KIN) survey was carried out with individuals from the community at Gypsy Hill Police Station on the 23 August 2005 in order to explore concerns about crime and anti- social behaviour in the area. This was developed by the MPS Corporate Performance Group and analysed by a specialist survey company culminating in a reference document.
• An evaluation meeting was held on the 22 September 2005 to discuss all the consultation and to decide on setting the boundary.
• The findings of this meeting were presented to the Gold group meeting on the 30 September 2005 where the members agreed the boundary.

5. The southern border of the boundary for the new team has now been agreed and will be the railway line that runs between Gypsy Hill railway station and Crystal Palace railway station. Both railway stations are included in the boundary. There was a need to draw the boundary line somewhere and the geographical area for this team needs to be manageable if it going to provide any ability to tackle the issues raised within that area by the community. The 'funding' for this team will be to resource one Sergeant, two constables and four Police Community Support Officers. The expectation on the new team to realistically cover the sort of area proposed by the petition could set them up to fail. The boundary has been carefully considered and selected through a transparent and structured process.

6. The petition mentions sixteen roads for proposed inclusion in the new teams area. Approximately six roads and parts of two others are included in the new teams boundary. The details of the area to be covered by the new team are due for public release in the near future before the public launch of the team on the 31 of October 2005.

7. However, it should not be forgotten that the MPS is currently working on a proposal on implementing a Safer Neighbourhood team to all areas of London. So those areas not covered will receive their own team within a year. It is an important working feature of these teams that they have a good awareness of the teams working around them and this should negate the concerns of residents who are not included in the new Crystal Palace area.

Public and Commercial Services Union (PCSU) petition

8. The PCSU wish to present a petition bearing the names of over 10,000 police staff, in the following terms: “We the undersigned are concerned that the Metropolitan Police Service and the Metropolitan Police Authority does not adequately compensate police staff for working within London. We call upon management to agree a fair London Allowance with a minimum of £4,000 regardless of pay band or work location.”

C. Race and equality impact

No direct implications in relation to the process of presenting petitions.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications arising directly from this report. The 2006/07 draft budget submission to the Mayor has not yet been agreed by the Authority however the Mayor has asked the authority to consider the further roll out of safer neighbourhoods in the submission.

E. Background papers

• Petitions

F. Contact details

Report author: Nick Baker

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18