Wrthi'n llwytho
Does dim crynodeb o'r cyfarfod hwn eto. Caiff crynodebau eu hysgrifennu pan fydd y cyngor yn cyhoeddi'r cofnodion, sef ei gofnod swyddogol o'r hyn a benderfynodd cyfarfod. Maen nhw fel arfer yn ymddangos ychydig wythnosau ar ôl y cyfarfod.
1.1 The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting. 1.2 Apologies had been received by Councillors Steve Evans, Gaynor James & David Williams. The Executive Member for Corporate Governance & Resources, Councillor Peter Jones, had also given apologies.
2.1 Councillor Nick Horler declared an interest as he was a member of the Police Crime Commissioner Panel. Councillor Lynda Clarkson also declared an interest as she was also a member of the Police Crime Commissioner Panel.
3.1 The minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 November 2024 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 The TLS went through the action sheet, noting that there were five outstanding actions listed. The action relating to the recommendations from the previous meeting had been completed and could be removed, however there were no further updates on the other actions. The TLS explained that there were no available updates at this time however once these were available then the committee would be given updates.
5.1 The TLS presented the report and appendices and highlighted that it was not an opportunity to re-scrutinise the previous items but was instead an opportunity to pose questions to the officers present or reprioritise for the rest of the cycle. Members had no questions. The SD-A&C stated that the remaining items for the cycle remained the most appropriate and he didn’t suggest any changes. Members agreed with this and following the Chair thanked the officers for attending and invited them to leave the meeting. The SD-A&C, HoC&W and ASGM left the meeting.
6.1 The Chair introduced the item. Following, the GMPSSU gave a detailed overview of the report. 6.2 In response to Members’ questions the officers provided the following answers: • GMPSSU – A lot of priorities for Safer Torfaen had been taken from the County Plan and input had been received from our partners in the Police and the Health Board which had formed part of the discussions. Community Safety was a focal point of the County Plan and therefore the remit was vast, so it had been important to focus on what was achievable and deliverable by the partnership. • GMPSSU – The partners that had been listed in the report were the core members but within that also sat the Community Cohesion team, whilst other internal partners had been co-opted in at times depending on what was being discussed. The partnership had an open-door policy so should members need to raise issues with them then they could. • CSLPSSU – Safer Torfaen was the strategic board of the statutory partners while the Community Safety team were the operational team that delivered the objectives of Safer Torfaen. • GMPSSU – Discussions were held regularly between meetings between agencies should there be a need, the example being that discussions with health partners had been held when necessary. • CSLPSSU – The majority of work that the Community Safety team had focussed on was Anti-Social behaviour looking at prevention and early intervention, therefore a lot of the work was targeted at young people. This work had involved collaborating with local primary schools as well as the Play Service. • GMPSSU – The priorities that had been selected, as stated in the report, had been chosen based off what had been considered achievable as a partnership. LS – In terms of policing, it was important to be flexible regarding priorities and they were reviewed on a weekly basis. Data was key to ensuring where plans were put in place. • CSLPSSU – The partnership had engaged with local businesses within the town centres as well as Community Support Officers which had helped inform our priorities. LS – It had been important to engage with local businesses to ensure that interventions could be put in place for anti-social behaviour. • CSLPSSU – Due to an increase in reports of anti-social behaviour, Blaenavon had been identified as a hotspot area, and these included reports of youths targeting vulnerable people. • CSLPSSU – It was the role of the Community Safety team to monitor individual interventions as opposed to Safer Torfaen and these were reported into the County Plan. • GMPSSU – Core funding had been maintained for the service but long-term funding for interventions had not been available, however should there be an opportunity this would be explored. • CSLPSSU – We had the ability to monitor the short-term impacts for the preventative measures that had been put in place, but for long term behavioural change this would be something that would need to be reviewed in 10 years time. • CSLPSSU – The interventions that been put in place in Blaenavon had formed part of a replicable plan that could be implemented in Pontypool and Cwmbran if required. • CSLPSSU – There was evidence that the link between criminal exploitation, anti-social behaviour and selling vapes in school had escalated across Gwent. There had been a number of reports across the Borough of young people causing criminal damage to gain access to vapes. GMPSSU – Vaping had been prioritised due to these links as well as the health risks surrounding them and the advertising of them to children, whilst it would also be a realistic priority that could be delivered. • CSLPSSU – The training that had been provided on vaping, had been well received based off the feedback we had received from schools and youth services and training packs would be shared with all teachers. • GMPSSU – The Community Safety team had been consulted when necessary, an example given was when changes had been made to the Domestic Homicide review and the Partnership had been involved in the consultation for these changes. • CSLPSSU – To measure the impact of our work to reduce violence in schools, we had worked with schools to identify at-risk children and then they were referred to our mentoring scheme. From there we were able to monitor their journey and measure the success of this early intervention. • CSLPSSU – We had worked closely with our Gwent counterparts and best practise had been shared across the area, including successful interventions and ideas for other possible interventions. SW – A taskforce had been set up in Blaenau Gwent and Community Wardens had been set up. This had been a successful intervention, and it was hoped that this could also be implemented across to Torfaen but funding would be needed. • CSLPSSU – Each school has its own MAPI meeting where they shared their data which would then get fed back to the Community Safety team so there was a uniformed approach to monitoring. • GMPSSU – There hadn’t been any barriers that had been identified since the inception of Safer Torfaen, although it was stated that data sharing amongst partners could be improved. • GMPSSU – Member input around future priorities would be welcome, and the Community Safety team would also consult with members of our communities to see what priorities they believed Safer Torfaen should focus on. 6.3 Officers left the meeting and members and the TLS and TD&MSO remained. 6.4 Recommendations Upon completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee offered the following recommendations:- Recommendation 1:- The Adults & Communities O&S Committee recommended littering be included under the overarching classification of anti-social behaviour. Whilst littering could be considered low level antisocial behaviour activity, it could lead onto higher level activities. Educational activity should be aimed at both primary and secondary aged children to raise awareness of the impact of littering and the potential consequences if caught. Recommendation 2:- The committee commended the work in increasing the number of young people accessing positive youth engagement activity organised by the team in partnership with Positive Futures and the Hwb. It was recommended Safer Torfaen work in collaboration with the Youth Service and Sports development to identify potential for delivering youth activity in problem areas elsewhere in the borough such as Youth Clubs. Recommendation 3:- Consider the inclusion of a licensing representative as an associated member of Safer Torfaen to contribute to the targeted work on vaping, in collaboration with Trading Standards, to clamp down on illegal sales of vapes. Recommendation 4:- Members recommended Community Safety officers liaise with the Strategic Director for Education, relevant education officers and headteacher forums to explore mechanisms for more thoroughly recording and tracking data related to violence in schools Recommendation 5:- Officers commented that more work could be done to link up systems across service areas such as with YOS, to provide a more detailed and informed picture of individuals presenting to the service or issues arising in areas within the borough. Members supported this proposal and recommended it be progress as a priority. Recommendation 6:- Members commended the positive pro-active work and preventative intervention activity that takes place across the three priorities, recommending greater publicising of positive case studies and outcomes to raise public awareness. Additional Comments & Observations from the Committee: The Adults & Communities O&S Committee commended the work of the Community Safety team and Safer Torfaen. Members welcomed the thorough responses to questions and suggested this be opened up more widely to a member’s seminar, to raise awareness amongst all members of the activity and impact of Safer Torfaen
7.1 The date of the next meeting was scheduled for 20 February 2025
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.