Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
1.1 The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting. 1.2 Apologies had been received by Councillors Karl Gauden, Lynda Clarkson, David Williams, Gaynor James & Executive Member Peter Jones
2.1 No declarations of interest made
3.1 The minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 November 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 The TLS went through the action sheet, there were no outstanding actions, Members noted the Action Sheet.
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. In response to Members’ questions the officers provided the following answers: · The SD-A&C explained that a performance framework already existed but lacked robust baseline data because the strategy was new, so Audit Wales had been unable to assess its effectiveness. He stated that he was confident in the framework and suggested Members might schedule detailed scrutiny next year once data had become available. He added that engagement work was being strengthened with local clubs and that officers would bring forward proposals in April to engage children and young people more directly. · The SD-A&C confirmed that the 95% target for Wellbeing Objective 2 had been set consistently at that level historically. He acknowledged that the target did not fully reflect current sector pressures and confirmed that future target‑setting would be reviewed to better reflect demand. · The SD-A&C explained how positive discussions with police colleagues had been held to develop a stronger dashboard to track and reduce inappropriate PPN referrals flowing into Early Intervention & Prevention and the social‑care front doors. He suggested that Members might consider a system‑wide scrutiny session—bringing in Police, Health and Housing partners—to examine the whole pathway, should the Committee wish to do so. · The SD-A&C clarified that the introduction of IVR at the front end meant the “abandoned calls” measure no longer indicated performance, because the system could not distinguish between a caller who self‑served successfully and a caller who hung up after waiting. He recommended removing the “abandoned calls” measure from the County Plan measures and stated that call wait‑time indicators remained positive. 5.2 Members agreed to replace the Housing Demand item with Third Sector Major Grants, and to retain the Early Intervention & Prevention item for the April meeting. Following questions the Chair thanked the officers for attending and invited them to leave the meeting. The SD-A&C left the meeting.
6.1 The Chair introduced the item. Members went straight into questioning. 6.2 In response to Members’ questions the officers provided the following answers: • The TLCS explained that anti‑social behaviour, ASB, was legally defined as behaviour causing alarm, harassment or distress. She added that the team applied the test case‑by‑case and impact‑led. She also stated that environmental ASB, e.g., noise, littering, graffiti, was handled by Environmental Health, and certain ASB types were police‑led. She then added that risk and hotspots were prioritised through the multi‑agency Community Safety Hub with over sixty partners. The HoC&W confirmed that locating Community Safety within the Prevention Hub provided consolidated oversight and a single view of a person, so support was distributed appropriately across the Council and demand on statutory services was reduced. • The TLCS clarified that new or emerging behaviours, such as slingshots or ball bearings, were monitored via intelligence from members, communities and hub partners, and that issues were escalated to Safer Torfaen where appropriate. • The TCLS explained that the team sometimes found it difficult to distinguish between ASB and criminality. She went on to say that they worked closely with police colleagues, checked information from members and communities, and used the Hub and Safer Torfaen to decide how to target activity. LS added that neighbourhood policing held weekly tasking and a fortnightly force tasking meeting and analysts identified trends, including slingshot usage, which drove planned operations with partners. He noted that current patterns appeared concentrated in south Wales communities from all‑Wales discussions and that communications had been issued to schools. There was a follow-up question to this and LS responded that while slingshots were easy to obtain legitimately, police would take action where criminal damage or wildlife harm occurred and that pre‑planned operations were being developed; he also described recent media attention and schools engagement. • The HoC&W clarified that the Prevention Hub covered Community Safety, support for young people at risk of becoming NEET, complex/family support, financial inclusion and housing‑related support, employability and skills, and the community “front door”. She reported early positive signs: better referrals, improved signposting, use of commissioned provision alongside in‑house services, and the ability to identify gaps. She said data would be more robust by April for scrutiny. • The TLCS stated that referrals arrived from police, schools, services, members, parents and the public; investigation began the day of referral, with typical first action, e.g., letter or arrangements, within about five working days. • The TLCS detailed that strike letters were used and confirmed that families were signposted to community support via the Torfaen Connect platform. • The TLCS explained that data‑sharing in schools through MAPI had improved since Community Safety moved into EIP, particularly for pupils at risk of becoming NEET, enabling fuller multi‑agency packages. • The TLCS clarified that exit‑strategy activities were voluntary unless mandated by a court; she said provision generally met need but identified gaps, for example in the music/arts and with activities for girls. She explained the team was working with Community Connectors and the Community Capacity team to develop options. The HoC&W added that some community groups needed additional skills and support to work effectively with more vulnerable young people; commissioning and development support were being used to shape provision, while making families more aware of what already existed. • The TLCS added that mentoring capacity was sufficient for the most complex cohort (around ten young people per year), with earlier‑stage prevention supporting lower‑level cases. • The TLCS clarified that prevention work included assemblies and workshops in schools and community programmes such as Breakaway sports; she noted that early intervention increasingly began in primary settings around age eight with additional support, e.g., Play Service mentoring and Lego clubs. There was a follow‑up question to which the TLCS responded that starting earlier helped prevent escalation, and the HoC&W added that the broader EIP model embedded aspiration and community‑resilience work with schools, e.g. world of work or entrepreneurship, so that early help became “everybody’s responsibility”. • The TLCS clarified that Safer Torfaen was the statutory strategic board, the Community Safety Hub was the operational arm, and EIP was the prevention system; co‑location within EIP reduced duplication and ensured the right team led each case. • The TLCS described how performance measures had been designed to track flow through the Hub and service‑level delivery. She added that data was under constant review to ensure robustness and usefulness for service improvement, commissioning and directing grants, and confirmed future reporting to scrutiny. • LS confirmed that town‑centre owners and security were engaging regularly with police and Council.He reported an enhanced neighbourhood policing presence and a POP plan tackling root causes, e.g. free Wi‑Fi, covered spaces, alongside CCYP outreach. He cautioned that increased visible policing could drive more face‑to‑face reporting, affecting statistics. There was a follow‑up to this and LS responded that restricting bikes inside the privately managed centre would require agreement by the owners and given the many access points, physical barriers would be difficult, though security actively intervened and shared images for identification. The LOCS added that town‑centre partners sat within the Community Safety Hub and issues were discussed under the hotspots agenda. There was a further follow‑up which the TLCS responded that most young people gathered lawfully and should not be stigmatised, highlighting intergenerational projects with CCYP. The EM added that physical changes risked reducing accessibility for disabled people and emphasised hearing young people’s voices. • The TLCS confirmed that the team had learned from the All‑Wales ASB practitioners group and had adapted effective practice locally for issues such as “boy racer” interventions. • The TLCS explained that referrals came from police, schools, services, Members, parents and the public. There was a follow‑up and the TLCS acknowledged that phoning 101 could be challenging for residents before LS added that residents could use web and social media direct‑messaging too. He stressed the need for evidence to be routed through appropriate channels. There was a further follow‑up from and LS introduced “Neighbourhood Matters”, a two‑way, hyper‑local engagement platform that was being rolled out with face‑to‑face sign‑ups, social media promotion and control‑room support. The EM endorsed the approach and noted early positive experience with the platform. • The TLCS confirmed that voluntary engagement had been generally strong and noted that non‑engagers tended to escalate towards injunctions and that integration with EIP broadened holistic family support. • The TLCS explained that new innovative support was shaped by referral data and “what matters” conversations, including feedback gathered through outreach, e.g. Breakaway. She emphasised co‑design with service users. The HoC&W added that the prevention model allowed flexibility, combining commissioning and community grants so provision could be co‑designed and adjusted to need. • The TLCS acknowledged that costs could be a barrier to participation and highlighted community kit libraries and other local options that could loan equipment, while noting the team could not currently track long‑term retention in clubs. The HoC&W added that clubs needed to remain sustainable with initiatives such as “More Than a Club” and targeted grants helped explore options with sports groups to reduce barriers while maintaining viability. • The TLCS confirmed that substance‑misuse referrals were handled by commissioned services and through EIP triage the Council had explored underlying causes so people received a more appropriate package of support rather than purely reactive measures. The GOC&W added that collaboration with commissioned services and the EIP model had continued to address underlying causes alongside referrals. There was a follow‑up to this and the HoCW responded that the Community Capacity team was compiling a borough‑wide baseline and that provision would be surfaced on the Connect platform. • The TLCS confirmed that the review of community provision had identified gaps, such as in music/arts and girls’ provision. She added that items would be added to the Connect platform and shaped with partners next. • The TLCS reiterated that funding was a cross‑sector challenge and said officers that supported community groups to access grants, including Police Crime Commissioner small grant, and that the Hub’s commissioning approach would help. The HoC&W added that Community Capacity Builders like TVA, were close to the ground and could help groups maximise grants and sustainability and she confirmed there was strong local linkage despite pressures. • The GOC&W explained that officers had identified the Shared Prosperity Fund ending in March 2026 as a risk months earlier and so had been working to mitigate this risk. He confirmed that potential alternative grants had been progressed and that he was comfortable there would be no cliff‑edge for mentoring and related interventions. 6.3 Officers & the EM 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 recommended greater priority be focussed on working with the Community Capacity Team and the EIP Hub to comprehensively map out current provision and more importantly identify and look to address gaps in community provision for young people at risk of anti-social behaviour. Recommendation 2:- The committee expressed concerns around the sustainability of community groups based on funding issues and over reliance on volunteers with the potential impact this could have on ASB intervention activity. It was therefore recommended that a working group, or other suitable forum be set up to support community groups, ensuring a reduced risk of community provisions having to exit the system, and potentially putting pressure back onto statutory services such as Community Safety. Recommendation 3:- Members recognised the increasing presentations in complexity of young people and their families as they escalate through the ASB process and the barriers this creates to accessing to community support. The committee recommended further priority be focussed on developing early prevention and intervention support for vulnerable children/ young people, with a specific focus on neurodivergency support. Recommendation 4:- The committee complimented the Torfaen Connect platform, recommending greater promotion of this facility to aide signposting to the vast range of community activities available to young people and their families, to further strengthen the ASB prevention agenda. Recommendation 5:- Members expressed concerns that community safety interventions such as mentoring and positive futures is at risk due to being wholly reliant on grant funding, currently Shared Prosperity funded which ends in March 2026. The committee requested the Executive Member provide a briefing note setting out the funding position, once alternative funding sources and/ or mitigation measures have been identified. Additional Comments & Observations from the Committee: The Adults & Communities O&S Committee commended the work of the Community Safety team and welcomed the realignment within the EIP hub. Mindful of the discussions on substance misuse, and the upward trend of this in Torfaen, members intend to keep this as a focus for scrutiny activity in their dual role as Crime & Disorder Committee and would look to consider taking this forward as a stand-alone item, when developing their work programme for 2026-27. Committee members committed to supporting Gwent Police in promoting the new Neighbourhood Matters app once roll out is implemented.
7.1 The date of the next meeting was scheduled for 5 March 2026 7.2 The meeting ended at 11.38am
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.