Feedback from Local Action Team Event - Key Issues Raised
The numbered bullet points here represent a summary of the key issues raised at the recent city wide LAT event. Please note that exact wording from workshop flipcharts has been used in order to avoid changing meaning, but in some cases this makes the points more difficult to interpret. There is a similar document that summarises the proposed solutions to some of these issues.
1. Broader safety focused agenda
1.1 Priorities need to be community priorities not just police priorities as stated in the ToR, and groups/residents would prefer to define what they mean by community safety. Issues discussed are much broader and include parks, planning, licensing, housing, social activities, noise, youth work, schools and parking.
2. Terms of reference
2.1 Many LAT’s already have a ToR – LAT’s cannot have two Terms of reference this would not fit with charity law.
2.2 Ownership issues - groups need to develop and decide their own aims, objectives etc. The LATs are different in size, scope and nature – shouldn’t be a one size fits all approach.
2.3 There should be a separate document on agencies and police involvement which the TOR could be.
2.4 No reference to councillor role in LAT’s
2.5 The ToR implies that voluntary groups can be ‘told’ what to do – need to guide and support not impose, feels very top down. What will adopting the TOR do for them?
2.6 Governance guidance - how to elect members to a LAT
2.7 Danger that a formal structure will frighten residents from participating
3. City Wide Community Safety Structures
3.1 A clear explanation/diagram of the CDRP structure needs to be available – there was too much jargon and information to take in via talking. Could include names and contact details. Can LAT’s influence the 12 strategic priorities?
3.2 Communication and feedback channels aren’t clear or transparent.
3.3 Do LAT meetings feed/report to Sussex Police Authority – again there is a need to show this clearly.
3.4 Resident representative should be on community safety forum – was this agreement by Brian Oxley communicated and can it now be done with dates and support.
4. Communication
4.1 Timings of city wide meetings need to be considered – as this often excludes attendance from certain groups
4.2 Communication around city wide meetings is vital if LAT’s are to attend/input i.e. JAG and CSF
4.3 Ability to send a representative to CSF had not been communicated – not everyone knows about the CSF forum though and what is does etc.
4.4 Lack of networking and contact between chairs of LAT’s – can we share contact details at least asap and meet quarterly?
5. Service Engagement
5.1 How do LAT’s engage on service issues with Council
5.2 What is the structure and commitment of agency commitment to LATS, i.e. a need to define police and council contribution i.e. what is the minimum that can be offered? At the moment it is inconsistent. This needs to be clarified across departments not just with regard to community safety professionals (e.g. City Clean, Youth Work, Housing etc)
5.3 Lack of partnership working
5.4 How does an officer know how to go to a LAT and how do residents find out about which officer they need for their meetings – needs coordination and signposting. Could there be a city LAT coordination role?
5.5 How do officers know each others roles in LAT’s and which ones they attend?
5.6 Officers can get a bad time a LAT’s
5.7 Officer taking action spreading too thinly
6. Representation
6.1 Need to know how to find and elect a representative Chair and should not be Councillor led, residents should chair or at least Councillors should have over as soon as possible.
6.2 BHCC/ Police not recognising some groups as LAT’s – some have been told they aren’t a LAT when they feel they clearly are – felt patronised and devalued
6.3 As a result of the organic process of LAT creation - some have been created with imaginary boundaries and some with boundaries that cross over and clash. There are also bits of no-mans land.
6.4 In areas where there are not other forums LAT’s pick up wider issues - for example where there isn’t a Neighbourhood Action Group
6.5 What’s the process for starting up a LAT – need some guidance for new groups
6.6 If officers from planning attended it could save time in planning consultations and concerns arising as a result
6.7 Who arranges meetings, where when and how – needs recognising that this is time consuming role.
7. Resources
All LAT’s need to cover basic core expenses including publicity, administration, venue hire, stationary, etc
LAT’s would like a budget to provide local solutions to local problems
There were concerns about long term future of LAT’s if they are having to rely on external support or raise funding for basic running costs.
8. Other
8.1 Why 3 priorities how quickly are they turned around for example as a result of seasonal trends.
8.2 Displacement issues can occur.
8.3 Titled aspect to do with crime and disorder
8.4 Way meeting planned today is wrong – should have been bottom up
Sam Warren and Nicky Cambridge
Communities Team, Strategy and Governance
3rd April 2009
