Community Safety Inspection Report 2008 - pdf - Selby District Council

Service Inspection Report 

August 2008 

Community Safety 

Selby District Council

The Audit Commission is an independent watchdog, driving economy, efficiency and 

effectiveness in local public services to deliver better outcomes for everyone. 

Our work across local government, health, housing, community safety and fire and 

rescue services means that we have a unique perspective. We promote value for 

money for taxpayers, covering the £180 billion spent by 11,000 local public bodies. 

As a force for improvement, we work in partnership to assess local public services 

and make practical recommendations for promoting a better quality of life for local 

people. 

Copies of this report 

If you require further copies of this report, or a copy in large print, in Braille, 

on tape, or in a language other than English, please call 0844 798 7070. 

© Audit Commission 2008 

For further information on the work of the Commission please contact: 

Audit Commission, 1st Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4HQ 

Tel: 020 7828 1212 Fax: 020 7976 6187 Textphone (minicom): 020 7630 0421 

www.audit-commission.gov.uk

Community Safety │ Contents 3 

Contents 

Service Inspection 4 

Summary 5 

Scoring the service 6 

Recommendations 9 

Report 11 

Context 11 

The locality 11 

The council 12 

The Council's community safety service 12 

How good is the service? 14 

What has the community safety service aimed to achieve? 14 

Is the service meeting the needs of the local community and users? 16 

Is the service delivering value for money? 22 

What are the prospects for improvement to the service? 25 

What is the service track record in delivering improvement? 25 

How well does the service manage performance? 27 

Does the service have the capacity to improve? 30 


4 Community Safety │Service Inspection 

Service Inspection 

This inspection has been carried out by the Audit Commission under section 10 

of the Local Government Act 1999 and is in line with the Audit Commission’s 

strategic regulation principles. These principles embody the objectives of our 

Strategic Plan and Strategic Regulation. They also reflect the principles from The 

Government’s Policy on Inspection of Public Services (July 2003). 

Audit Commission service inspections should: 

• focus on public service outcomes from a user perspective; 

• act as a catalyst to help inspected bodies improve their performance; 

• concentrate inspection work where it will have most impact, so that it is 

proportionate and based on an assessment of risk; 

• be based on a rigorous assessment of costs and benefits, with a concern for 

achieving value for money both by the inspected organisation and within the 

inspection regime itself; 

• be, and be seen to be, independent of the inspected organisation; 

• report in public, using impartial evidence to inform the public about the 

performance of public services so as to enhance accountability; 

• involve collaborative working with other inspectorates and external review 

agencies to achieve greater coordination and a more holistic approach to the 

assessment of performance by audited and inspected bodies; 

• share learning to create a common understanding of performance that 

encourages rigorous self assessment and better understanding of their 

performance by inspected organisations; 

• be carried out objectively by skilled and experienced people to high standards 

and using relevant evidence, transparent criteria, and open review processes; 

and 

• enable continuous learning so that inspections can become increasingly 

effective and efficient. 

We assess services using published key lines of enquiry (KLOE) to inform our 

judgements. The KLOEs can be found on the Audit Commission’s website at 

www.audit-commission.gov.uk. 

This report is issued in accordance with the Audit Commission’s duty under 

section 13 of the 1999 Act. 


Community Safety │ Summary 5 

Summary 

1 The Council and its partners have developed a clear vision to improve the quality 

of life for those who live and work in the district. Community safety is seen as a 

vital component in delivering this vision and this is reflected in the importance 

given to community safety in strategies and in setting annual priorities. 

2 The Council knows its community well and understands its needs and concerns. 

It has a strong approach to diversity and uses consultation, community 

engagement and improving intelligence around community safety issues to 

develop appropriate responses to those wishes and concerns. Access to 

community safety services is good, but there is not an overall set of service 

standards for community safety that the public can recognise. 

3 There have been significant reductions in overall crime over the last three years 

and in most categories of crime, although progress has slowed recently. The 

partnership has seen particular success in its approach to dealing with domestic 

violence and the night-time economy but less progress in tackling the incidence 

of burglary. Pockets of anti-social behaviour and environmental crime are 

targeted but fear of crime remains an issue in some areas. 

4 The partnership and the success of individual initiatives demonstrate good value 

for money over time, but the lack of clear outcomes and targets for all community 

safety investment and actions undertaken by the Council limit the extent to which 

it can assess the Value for Money (VFM) of its community safety service. 

5 The Council and its partners are increasing their capacity to deliver through better 

use of expertise, sharing of resources and increased focus on priorities. However, 

the Council is not evaluating the potential contribution that community safety 

could make to delivering against corporate and community objectives. It is not 

fully effective at designing desired community safety outcomes and targets into its 

service planning, external contracts and funding to community groups. 

6 Although at an early stage, the Council has clear plans to improve its overall 

approach to community engagement and has secured significant additional 

resources to invest in tension monitoring and play facilities. Strengthened 

partnership working at county-wide level should lead to an improved focus on the 

new priorities, such as the alcohol harm reduction strategy. 


6 Community Safety │Scoring the service 

Scoring the service 

7 We have assessed Selby District Council as providing a ‘good’, two-star service 

that has promising prospects for improvement. Our judgements are based on the 

evidence obtained during the inspection and are outlined below. 

Table 1 Scoring chart 1 : 

Prospects for 

improvement? 

Excellent 

Promising 

Uncertain 

‘a good 

service that 

has promising 

prospects for 

improvement’ 

Poor 

Poor 

 

Fair 

 

Good 

 

Excellent 

A good service? 

Source: Audit Commission 

1 The scoring chart displays performance in two dimensions. The horizontal axis shows how good the service or 

function is now, on a scale ranging from no stars for a service that is poor (at the left-hand end) to three stars 

for an excellent service (right-hand end). The vertical axis shows the improvement prospects of the service, 

also on a four-point scale. 


Community Safety │ Scoring the service 7 

8 The service is a good, two-star service because: 

• there have been significant reductions in most crimes over the past three 

years; 

• improved CCTV and ‘Nightsafe’ initiatives are successfully reducing antisocial 

behaviour in the evenings, especially in parts of the district where there 

were significantly higher levels; 

• partnership working is a strength, the Council and partners have delivered a 

range of initiatives including working with young people and securing funding 

for physical and environmental improvements to help prevent crime and 

anti-social behaviour; 

• through the Joint Area Groups, tenants and residents associations and other 

consultation, the Council and partners have a good understanding of the 

crime and anti-social behaviour issues in the district and have engaged well 

with a wide a range of people including vulnerable people, residents and 

businesses to identify their key concerns; 

• the Council and partners are successfully addressing homelessness and 

domestic violence; 

• the Council is taking account of community safety issues in delivering wider 

service provision, for example parts of street scene and leisure activities are 

targeted to help improve community safety and community cohesion; and 

• the Council is successfully detecting and preventing fraud. 

9 However: 

• some community tensions remain in newer developments such as in Barlby 

resulting in ASB hotspots; 

• the Council's ability to evidence outcomes and therefore to fully demonstrate 

value for money is limited; 

• the community safety service does not have service standards or customer 

promises which would inform local people of the standards they should 

expect and progress against them; and 

• although overall crime has reduced, the number of burglaries has been on an 

upward trend since August 2007, against national and most similar 

comparators, and fear of crime remains a strong local issue. 


8 Community Safety │Scoring the service 

10 The service has promising prospects for improvement because: 

• the Council has demonstrated long term commitment to community safety 

which is one of its key priorities; 

• the Council has a good track record of reducing most categories of crime 

through direct or partnership working and satisfaction with the service is high; 

• there is robust monitoring and management of key performance indicators; 

• a greater involvement of key senior partners in the community safety 

partnership (CSP) at a strategic level and a more focused approach to 

allocation of resources is improving the partnership’s capacity to deliver 

further improvements; 

• the service has adequate financial capacity and people to deliver future plans 

for improvement; 

• plans are in place to further improve access to the service for example 

through joint drop in sessions in market towns; and 

• the Council is self aware about current performance and opportunities for 

improvement and is willing to learn from others and share its own 

experiences. 

11 However: 

• recent partnership tensions have led to the resignation of the chair, which is 

currently vacant; 

• actions and initiatives are not fully evaluated to demonstrate value for money 

and there is no comprehensive measurement of the impact that they are 

delivering; 

• the Council is not effectively designing community safety impacts into all of its 

activities, such as service plans, community group funding and external 

contracts; and 

• a number of key initiatives, such as the Council's new approach to community 

engagement and planned investment in community cohesion actions are at a 

very early stage and not yet demonstrating their impact. 


Community Safety │ Recommendations 9 

Recommendations 

12 To rise to the challenge of continuous improvement, councils need inspection 

reports that offer practical pointers for improvement. Our recommendations 

identify the expected benefits for both local people and the council. In addition we 

identify the approximate costs 2 and indicate the priority we place on each 

recommendation and key dates for delivering these where they are considered 

appropriate. In this context the inspection team recommends that the council 

should do the following. 

Recommendation 

R1 Establish mechanisms to routinely and systematically evaluate projects 

and initiatives against service and corporate objectives and identify the 

impact of the work undertaken. 

The expected benefits of this recommendation are: 

• increased awareness of what does and does not work; 

• more efficient, effective and economic use of resources which are directed to 

priority areas; and 

• improved ability to determine value for money. 

The implementation of this recommendation will have high impact with low 

costs. This should be implemented by April 2009. 


R2 Develop and implement better planning and integration of Community 

Safety issues and actions within the Council’s overall approach to service 

delivery by: 

• embedding section 17 responsibilities in all relevant procurement and 

contract activity; 

• linking Council funding to quality outcomes; and 

• smarter inclusion of the desired outcomes within council service plans 

and as part of its funding to external organisations. 

2 Low cost is defined as less than 1 per cent of the annual service cost, medium cost is between 1 and 5 percent 

and high cost is over 5 per cent. 


10 Community Safety │Recommendations 


• a more co-ordinated approach; 

• effective use of available resources; and 

• better demonstration of VFM 

The implementation of this recommendation will have high impact with low costs. 

This should be implemented by April 2009. 


R3 Develop overall customer service standards and customer promises for 

Community Safety, evaluate performance against them and publicise 

results. These should be reviewed and refined as new approaches to 

community engagement develop. 


• local businesses and residents will know what level of service to expect; and 

• services can be tailored to meet individual community needs and aspirations 

The implementation of this recommendation will have high impact with low costs. 

Community safety service standards should be developed by April 2009. Further 

development of standards and customer promises, tailored to individual 

community needs, will be dependant on the outcome of the community 

engagement pilots. 


Community Safety │ Report 11 

Report 

Context 

The locality 

13 Selby is a mainly rural district in North Yorkshire. It has three main towns - Selby, 

Tadcaster and Sherburn in Elmet. The population of approximately 77,600 is 

largely dispersed throughout the district in the many significant villages and 

remote hamlets. The district is significantly more rural in character than most of 

the Yorkshire and Humber sub-region. 

14 Selby district occupies a central strategic location within the Yorkshire and 

Humber region and Leeds City region next to the A1, M62 and M18. There is a 

direct train service to London and Manchester as well as access to the East 

Coast main line at York, Leeds and Doncaster. 

15 Due to the district’s location next to the major trunk roads cross border crime is 

an issue in its south and west. Travelling criminals tend to focus on burglary, 

vehicle crime (mainly theft of a motor vehicle) and theft of plant machinery. There 

are also a number of anti-social activities related to cross border crime including 

the use of ‘off-road’ motor vehicles and fly-tipping. 

16 Although mainly rural, industry is well developed, with major industrial locations 

including Drax and Eggborough power stations, the three breweries at Tadcaster 

and the Saint-Gobain Glass manufacturing plant. 

17 Selby district is predominantly an affluent district with five localities in the Index of 

Multiple Deprivation's (IMD) 10 per cent least deprived areas. Selby district has 

only two localities in the IMD's 25 per cent most deprived areas. These are in 

Selby North and Selby South wards. One of these (in Selby North) is in the IMD's 

20 per cent most deprived areas. Selby district has no localities in the country's 

10 per cent most deprived areas. 

18 Selby district’s population is predominantly of white (99.3 per cent) ethnic origin; 

the tenth highest percentage out of all 376 districts in England and Wales. The 

most prevalent ethnic minority group is Chinese (at 0.2 per cent or 115 people). 

The small ethnic minority population is scattered across the district’s towns, 

villages and hamlets and there are currently two permanent sites for gypsy and 

travelling communities. The percentage split is not expected to rise significantly 

over the next 20 years. However, over the last 18 months the number of eastern 

European migrant workers has increased considerably with a top estimate of 

1,500 migrant workers and their families now living in the district. 


12 Community Safety │Report 

19 At the 2001 Census, 41 per cent of the district’s population was aged over 45. 

Whilst the numbers of those aged 0-19 in the district is expected to remain at 

about 19 per cent to the year 2020, the proportion of those over 55 is expected to 

rise from 22 per cent in 2005 to 28 per cent in 2020. This increasingly older 

population tends to fear crime more and believe crime is increasing. This 

perception is reflected in the 2007 General Satisfaction Survey. 

20 Although 92 per cent of people in the district believe that their health is ‘good’ or 

‘fairly good’, female life expectancy is the lowest in North Yorkshire. The misuse 

of alcohol is a recognised health risk in the district as it is nationally, along side 

the significant impact the over consumption of alcohol can have on crime and 

disorder in the district. Although drugs are an issue, partners consider the harm 

caused through the consumption of alcohol to have a greater impact on the 

quality of life in the district. 

21 North Yorkshire is recognised as a low crime area with the joint lowest rate of 

crimes (64 crimes per 1,000 population) in England in the year ending 

March 2008. The number of crimes in Selby district reflects this at 60.5 crimes 

per 1,000 population in 2006/07. Overall, Selby district has seen a significant 

reduction in crime over the last three years. The greatest reductions are in 

relation to domestic burglary, vehicle crime and criminal damage. 

22 There is a county-wide Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) as well as one for each 

of the seven North Yorkshire districts. The Selby LSP published its five-year 

sustainable community strategy in 2005. 

The council 

23 Selby District Council (SDC) lies within the boundary of North Yorkshire County 

Council. At the time of the inspection the Conservative party had control of the 

Council with 29 seats; the Labour party had 9 seats, and there were 

3 independent councillors. 

24 The Council operates with three boards (social, environment and economy) and 

four committees to deal with licensing, planning, standards and policy and 

resources. The Social Board deals with community safety matters. An 

independent councillor chairs the Overview and Scrutiny committee. 

25 The net revenue budget for the Council in 2008/09 is £11.4 million and the 

planned capital spending is £536,000 as part of a £3.9 million total capital 

programme. The Council employs 347 staff in seven service areas, of which 

70 per cent are full time and 30 per cent are part-time. 

The Council's community safety service 

26 Community safety sits within the Policy and Performance department. The head 

of service for the department oversees a small community safety team of a safer 

and stronger communities coordinator, one full-time safer communities officer and 

a part-time community safety assistant. 


Community Safety │ Report 13 

27 The Council and its partners have recently co-located the Police, Youth Offending 

Team and the Council’s Safer Communities Officer. The co-located officers are 

based in Community House, a new building managed by Selby District 

Association of Voluntary Services (AVS) bringing together statutory partners with 

a wide range of voluntary organisations that together are able to coordinate effort 

to tackle community safety priorities. 

28 The Safer and Stronger Communities Coordinator coordinates and develops 

partnership activity; managing resources; performance management; monitoring 

of agreed CSP and Council community safety target indicators; commissioning, 

monitoring and evaluating specific initiatives to address the CSP priorities. This 

post holder also works across Council departments to plan and coordinate 

community safety related activity, such as licensing, environment, planning and 

housing services. 

29 The Council's total net budget for community safety in 2008/09 is £257,000, of 

which £102,000 is to support delivery of the community safety plan (including 

staffing) and £124,000 to fund CCTV initiatives. This represents 2.3 per cent of 

the Council's total net revenue budget for 2008/09. The remainder is SDC funding 

for specific community safety initiatives. In addition, community groups can bid for 

funding through monies made available to the community investment 

partnerships (CIPs) and through other community funds but the amount allocated 

to projects that directly or indirectly deliver community safety benefits is 

un-quantified. There is no planned capital spending on community safety in 

2008/09 although some parts of the overall capital programme, such as secure 

design within urban renaissance and car park refurbishments, will contribute to 

improved community safety. 


Community Safety │ How good is the service? 15 

35 The Selby Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership's (CDRP's) community 

safety strategy 2005-2008 has been focused on five priority areas: 

• acquisitive crime; 

• violent crime; 

• anti-social behaviour; 

• accident prevention; and 

• fear of crime. 

36 In addition, the partners have focused on four underlying themes (drug and 

alcohol issues, young people, targeting of prolific offenders and diversity issues) 

to strengthen the impact on the five priority areas. 

37 The Council and its partners have set priorities for the next three years as part of 

the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) plan but specific targets for all these 

priorities have yet to be agreed. The new CSP plan 2008-2011, informed by the 

Joint Strategic Intelligence Assessment (JISA), aims to achieve national priorities 

through the Public Service Agreements (PSAs) and county and local priorities 

and targets from the National Indicator Set through the Local Area Agreement 

refresh (LAA2). The new partnership plan has four priority themes under which 

key issues are identified: 

• safer neighbourhoods; 

• reducing crime; 

• safer roads; and 

• drugs and alcohol. 

The safer neighbourhoods theme is underpinned by priorities to 'build respect 

while reducing anti-social behaviour', improve community engagement' and 

'reduce fear of crime'. 

38 Other council policies and strategies reflect the potential contribution they can 

make to improved community safety, although actions and targets are not 

specific. For example, the sport and cultural strategy 2006-2011 states, 'cultural 

provision is central to maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in our 

communities as taking part in cultural activities contributes to our health and 

provides social opportunities, reduces isolation, crime and contributes to active 

communities'. These aspects are expanded within the policy statement to 

'develop individuals and communities' which is one of the six priority areas for 

action. This means that the Council clearly recognises the potential of sport and 

culture to deliver its wider aims around community safety and cohesion. 


16 Community Safety │How good is the service? 

Is the service meeting the needs of the local community and 

users? 

Access to services, customer care, community focus and diversity 

39 Access to community safety services is good and the Council and its partners 

share a good understanding of their local communities and needs through an 

effective range of consultation and engagement mechanisms. The Council's 

approach to diversity is good. 

40 The Council offers a wide range of access channels for local people to obtain 

information on and to report community safety issues. There is a good range of 

communication options, including new media such as SMS text (to report graffiti, 

abandoned cars and fly-tipping), the internet (including ‘Browesaloud’ for people 

with visual impairment), phone, literature in a range of languages, face-to-face 

customer contact centres and a range of public meetings. The new one-stop shop 

in Selby is an attractive and welcoming facility. When public meetings are 

arranged such as the joint action groups (JAGs), the Council works with its 

partners to ensure meetings are well publicised; venues change to encourage 

local attendance with meetings organised in accessible locations that cover some 

of the most rural areas of the district. This ensures that as many people as 

possible have access to information and reporting channels. 

41 The Council and its partners make good use of printed material to inform and 

educate local people about community safety issues. There is a range of leaflets 

including an informative community safety booklet and detailed leaflets about 

issues including anti-social behaviour, domestic violence, doorstep selling and 

illegal motorbike activity. All of these give clear guidance on how to report 

incidents. The Council issues media releases on its community safety 

achievements and campaigns along with CSP partners and these are part of a 

forward communications plan that frequently links with wider actions, such as 

school visits, action days and household leaflet drops. The Council also makes 

good use of its own publications, such as Citizenlink, the Council newspaper for 

all residents, Open Door, the tenants' newsletter and SDC Voice, the Council's 

internal staff newsletter to keep residents and staff informed about community 

safety and crime prevention matters. These communications make users aware 

of services available and help to educate and inform. 



42 There is a good range of services for both victims and perpetrators of domestic 

violence (DV). The Council and its partners have identified DV as a priority issue 

for the area and effective joint working has delivered tangible outcomes. Through 

the Selby District Domestic Abuse Forum, a local independent DV support group 

'Daisy Chain' - was created and funded through the CSP. Daisy Chain offers 

help, advice and signposting to those suffering DV. Currently 12 volunteers 

including one male volunteer staff the service. In 2006/07, 169 referrals were 

received; in 2007/08 there were over 200 formal referrals received with 50 other 

families supported informally/indirectly or through other agencies. Eighty-three 

families are reported to have stayed in their home thanks to this initiative. As a 

result, the Council's housing service has mainstreamed funding of Daisy Chain 

and expanded its services so that perpetrators of DV are also offered help to find 

accommodation. 

43 Security improvements have been used to target households at risk of domestic 

violence and to keep families in their own homes. The CSP has developed an 

arrangement with the Home Improvement Agency to make small improvements 

such as additional outside lighting, new doors and window locks. The Sanctuary 

project is primarily targeted at keeping victims of DV and their families in their 

own homes. Last year the service target hardened 27 properties. This helps to 

reassure families and individuals giving them the confidence to stay in their 

homes. Feedback is positive as it allows young people to continue in schools and 

for parents to maintain normal routines and work patterns. 

44 Engagement with the community is good and opportunities are taken to feed back 

the results of actions taken to the public. The annual State of the Area address 

and JAGs are examples of effective mechanisms for gaining local views on 

quality of life issues and putting resources in place to address these. The 

Council’s annual State of the Area Address consultation highlights the authority’s 

ability to listen and respond to, amongst other Council responsibilities, community 

safety concerns. JAGs involve working with partners and residents; using the 

local knowledge, intelligence and expertise provided, combined with the expertise 

of both statutory and voluntary agencies, to deliver local solutions. These include 

Environmental Services increasing street cleaning activity in areas identified by 

JAG meetings and removing fly-tipped rubbish and abandoned vehicles. These 

have also led to closer working between the Council, parish councils and Police 

to tackle such issues. The public have fed back at subsequent JAG meetings that 

they are happy that their previous issues were swiftly resolved. The JAG process 

has enabled organisations to work together to solve local community safety 

issues. 



45 There are also some effective measures to consult groups of residents on 

specific initiatives but these are not systematically undertaken for all 

communities. The Council consults through a Citizens Panel and has put a 

number of good measures in place to consult on specific projects. For example: 

• young people were extensively consulted on the design and materials to be 

used for the skate park next to Abbey leisure centre and are being consulted 

on the best way to develop play facilities as part of the district-wide play 

strategy; 

• older people are consulted as part of tenants and residents association 

meetings and through targeted estate walkabouts; and 

• gypsy and traveller communities have been consulted on their cultural ties 

and travelling patterns in order to feed the county-wide assessment of need 

for additional traveller camps. 

This means that targeted groups are consulted effectively on specific projects that 

will clearly impact on them but opportunities may be missed to engage regularly, 

and meet the needs of some of these communities of interest. 

46 The Council has established service standards for the relevant areas of service 

delivery encompassed by community safety but these are not brought together as 

a single set of standards. The Council has developed service standards for areas 

such as customer service response times, dealing with environmental crime 

within target timescales and in housing services, such as keeping the number of 

void properties low. However, these are in different places and are communicated 

to the public in a disjointed way. This means that the public are not clear what 

they can expect from the community safety service. 

47 The Service’s overall approach to equality and diversity is good. It has 

undertaken an equality impact assessment of the community safety partnership 

plan (CSPP) 2008-2011 and identified differing impacts for example on its 

migrant worker population and young people. The relevant actions have been 

incorporated into the CSPP action plan and are being implemented. 

Operationally, the Council and its partners are working well with agencies such as 

the Learning Disabilities Network, Racial Equality Network and mental health 

organisations to improve services to vulnerable people. As a result of joint 

working, for example, the Service has devised a 'keeping safe' card aimed at 

helping vulnerable people communicate important information if in difficulty. 

Some front line staff have learnt Polish to help new arrivals better understand 

how services can be accessed and what is expected of their behaviour and 

Language Line is being used more often by the Council to help these users. The 

Council as part of ‘Selby Together’ (a group of voluntary, statutory and other 

organisations) have developed a welcome pack for eastern European migrant 

workers. The pack provided in Polish and English explains how to apply for 

housing, provides advice on community safety and personal safety along with 

other useful information. Work has also been undertaken to ensure that suitable 

alternative reporting options are available including anonymity. This helps to meet 

the needs of vulnerable and minority groups. 



48 There is a clear link between identification of community needs and priorities and 

long-term planning for community safety to address these. The Council’s 

community safety priorities are identified through the Joint Strategic Intelligence 

Assessment (JSIA) introduced under the new CDRP minimum standards and 

statutory responsibilities. To help inform the JSIA process the Council provided 

the police (who collate and produce the JSIA) with a range of qualitative and 

statistical data relevant to crime and disorder and improving community safety 

including feedback from the JAGs and statistical information from Environmental 

Services. This means quantitative analysis has been considered alongside 

community input and ensures alignment between the Council targets and those 

agreed in the Community Safety Partnership Plan. 

Service outcomes for the community 

49 The Council and its partners are contributing well to a high quality of life in the 

district for those that live and work in the area through community safety activity. 

Overall crime levels are low and the quality of the environment is high, and the 

partners continually strive to identify trends and 'hotspot' areas. Fear of crime 

remains an issue. There is a focus on actions but the outcomes of individual 

projects and initiatives are unclear in many cases, so the Council and its partners 

are not always able to identify which actions are making the difference. 

50 The Council and its partners have met their promises well. The Home Office set 

targets for CDRPs to reduce volume crime over the three-year period 2005/06 to 

2007/08, using data for 2003/04 as the baseline. The Council and its partners hit 

those targets for the overall crime rate and for nine out of ten of the individual 

crime categories used by the British Crime Survey (BCS). The total crime rate fell 

by 29.5 per cent compared to a target of a 16.5 per cent reduction. Most 

categories of crime have also fallen in the last 12 months, although there has 

been a 7.5 per cent rise in burglary. This good progress improves the quality of 

life for residents and businesses and reduces the overall cost to society from 

crime. 

51 Despite low levels of crime, the partners are working well to identify and deal with 

hotspots. In a low crime area, it is difficult to identify clear trends and crime 

hotspots. Nevertheless, the partnership makes good use of data, such as reports 

of ASB and environmental crime, to act quickly and decisively when incidents 

occur. This has led to joint action in a number of areas including: 

• Barlby, where youth nuisance remains an issue in a 'commuter belt' 

community and where parental supervision is not as strong as in some 

'traditional' communities; 

• graffiti at Tadcaster bus station, where CCTV has contributed to a successful 

conviction; 



• Abbey Place in Selby, where resident concerns raised through the JAG have 

led to environmental security improvements, plans to install mobile CCTV and 

use of the night marshals to add to the night-time presence and feeling of 

reassurance; and 

• creation of a quiet-zone in an area of Selby where older people were 

experiencing ASB. 

Although not all issues have disappeared as a result of these actions, residents 

report significant improvements and are happy that their concerns are listened to 

and appropriate action is being taken. This contributes to some reduction in 

actual crime but also should help to reduce fear of crime. 

52 The partners are working well together to manage the night-time economy. The 

night marshals scheme is collaboration between the Council and the Police. It is 

currently funded through the CSP with externally-funded pump-priming to reduce 

violent crime. Driven by ‘Selby District Nightsafe’ the scheme employs registered 

door staff to patrol areas identified as hotspots to prevent incidents of disorder 

and violence. During the pilot period that ran over Christmas 2007, within the 

control area, recorded violent crime reduced by 39 per cent and overall crime by 

21 per cent. Feedback from licensees, those socialising in the town, taxi drivers, 

late night takeaways, and stakeholders is also positive. 

53 Development of the Pubwatch initiative has been successful in creating a safer 

environment for businesses and customers in the district. In 2004, Selby had one 

informal Pubwatch scheme. This has been formalised with schemes now 

operating throughout the district including Selby Town, Tadcaster, Sherburn and 

Selby South. Two thirds of the district’s pubs are involved in Pubwatch, with over 

70 individuals barred from premises under the ‘banned from one banned from all’ 

initiative. All four schemes help licensees to manage troublesome individuals in a 

coordinated way by banning them within hours of any offence being committed on 

licensed premises. This results in a safer social drinking environment for 

customers and stakeholders. 

54 The Council and its partners are working together to deal with the increase in 

burglary. The lack of clear hotspots makes it difficult to identify where additional 

security for potentially vulnerable homes should be targeted. Partnership working 

with persistent prolific offenders (PPOs) and jointly-funded projects are working 

well. The police and council officers believe that distraction burglary targeted at 

the elderly is a significant element of unreported burglaries and under reporting of 

burglary was revealed by the 2004 crime audit. In response to concerns about 

distraction burglary, the Council has created a number of areas where cold calling 

is prohibited. The increase in burglary rates has levelled off and is now average 

compared to other similar areas. 



55 The Council and its partners are working together to reduce accidents and deaths 

on the road, but the impact of these initiatives is not measured. ‘Drive Alive’ is a 

multi-agency event that brings together the Yorkshire Ambulance Service, North 

Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust, the Police, district councils and North 

Yorkshire County Council, schools, victims and relatives of killed and seriously 

injured, the Fire and Rescue Service and the DVLA to demonstrate all aspects of 

motoring safety. The initiative raises awareness to all of the dangers associated 

with motoring such as purchasing a car, driving under the influence of substances 

and the consequences to the driver and victims of poor decision-making. This 

coordinated effort delivers appropriate messages to young people about to start 

driving and also reduces the cost to the agencies involved. NYCC data on road 

traffic casualties shows that between 2006 and 2007, there has been a reduction 

in the number killed or seriously injured on the roads in Selby but slight accidents 

and casualties have increased, including those involving young drivers. This 

suggests that the initiative has resulted in mixed success to date. 

56 The Council is making a significant contribution to keeping the levels of 

environmental crime, such as fly-tipping, abandoned cars and graffiti, low. For 

example, last year, ten cars were abandoned, all reports were responded to 

within the 24-hour target and the cars were also removed within the seven-day 

target. Graffiti is below 1 per cent as measured by the amount visible from nearby 

highways and hotspots are targeted. These are intended to improve real and 

perceived quality of life for residents. Despite these improvements, there are 

hotspots of commercial fly-tipping and resident satisfaction with street cleaning (in 

2006/07) was 67 per cent, which is slightly lower than the national average. 

57 Council services contribute well to improved community safety in the district, but 

the impact of this contribution is generally unclear. Service managers are aware 

of their duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (S17) and the 

Acts increased scope as part of the Police and Justice Act 2006 to take into 

account the implications for crime and disorder in all that they do. This results in 

good incorporation of community safety initiatives within service plans and a 

range of appropriate actions. These include: 

• regular joint visits to licensed premises by the licensing officer along with 

police and environmental health officers. Problem premises are targeted for 

additional action; 

• a joint drugs operation between police, housing and property services. The 

action was initially stimulated by JAG concerns and followed by surveillance 

and arrests; 

• planning work with the Police architectural liaison unit to incorporate better 

security measures into designs for new developments; and 

• leisure programmes, such as holiday activity sessions that are designed to 

have a diversionary benefit by occupying young people in positive activity. 

These initiatives show that integration of community safety considerations within 

other Council services is good, but in many cases, it is not clear if these actions 

are delivering the desired community safety outcomes. 



58 Joint action between the Council, PCT and Drugs and Alcohol Action Team 

(DAAT) to support people with drug and alcohol problems has been weak until 

recently. Although the Council has been a willing partner, a combination of 

circumstances including financial deficits and restructuring within the partner 

agencies has resulted in a weak focus on priorities and resulting actions to 

address the key issues. This is important because, although drug misuse has 

been a relatively small issue for the district in the past, it is an emerging problem. 

Binge and hazardous drinking are particular issues in Selby and alcohol misuse 

plays a significant part in many categories of crime, including the local priorities to 

address domestic violence and ASB. 

Is the service delivering value for money? 

59 The Council does not have a complete picture of its investment in community 

safety or of the outcomes resulting from that input and so its demonstration of 

VFM for the community safety service is limited. The partnership is delivering 

good value for money. There are good examples of individual initiatives delivering 

VFM and the Council is delivering efficiencies through partnership working, 

co-location and by attracting external funding. 

60 The Council has made efforts to assess the amount of money it and partners are 

spending on community safety, taking the local context into account and how this 

compares to other, similar areas. A comparison of councils within Selby ‘s CDRP 

family group shows, for 2007/08, that costs vary from £85,000 to £932,000 – at 

£171,000 Selby is below the group average of £338,000. This is also the case 

when comparing community safety costs across the district councils in North 

Yorkshire where the group average is £322,000 and nationally where the average 

is £220,000 across all non-metropolitan districts. This shows that Selby is a low 

spending partnership on community safety. 

61 The partnership is delivering good value for money, although CDRP comparisons 

are not helpful in determining comparative performance. As a low spending 

partnership, Selby CSP has comfortably exceeded its Home Office targets and is 

contributing well to the areas' overall vision to enjoy a high quality of life. Although 

it finished the three-year period in ninth place out of 15 CDRPs in its family group, 

the volatility of this comparison in low crime areas means that the CSP has 

moved from fourth place to twelfth in the space of a few months. 

62 The Council is unable to demonstrate clear VFM of its overall investment in 

community safety activity, although modest community safety budgets and staff 

resources resulting in reducing crime rates are positive indicators. The Council 

does not operate an activity-based costing model (as this would be over 

burdensome for a small authority) and much of its community safety contributions 

are mainstreamed within departmental budgets. This means that the extent of the 

Council's input to community safety is not easily quantifiable and combined with a 

lack of clear outcomes for many of the actions and projects, this results in a lack 

of clear demonstration of VFM overall. The Council is not doing enough to offset 

these limitations by designing community safety outcomes into service plans and 

collating anecdotal and qualitative evidence to show the difference that these 

initiatives are making. 



63 The Council is not making the most of 'quick wins' to demonstrate better VFM. It 

recently considered a report containing a bid to its performance initiative fund 

(invest to save monies) that requested £6,000 to fund a mobile CCTV unit to deal 

with commercial fly-tipping hotspots. The report clearly outlines the rationale for 

the bid, including the inability to gather quality evidence for prosecution and the 

current weight of resource (such as surveillance and legal costs) that are being 

invested without a solution. However, the potential cost savings to the Council 

and other partners are not quantified and the report concludes that there are no 

VFM implications for Council corporate policies. This means that the Council is 

not making its case for funding as convincing as it could and this could limit the 

resources available to deal with priority issues. 

64 The Council has reduced its reliance on external, time-limited funding for 

community safety staff resources by creating generic safer communities officer 

posts. Previously roles were specific, therefore if funding was lost for a specific 

post a gap in expertise would be created. By creating generic roles of safer 

communities officers it prevents Council service areas becoming dependant on 

externally funded expertise. It also allows for a more holistic approach to 

community safety issues. Having a wider remit of expertise (rather than just being 

an ASB Officer) makes the post more sustainable whilst re-enforcing the 

Council’s efforts to mainstream community safety. 

65 The Council can demonstrate the VFM of individual initiatives. For example: 

• Daisy Chain has reported that through their interventions, 83 families have 

remained in their homes. This is estimated to have saved the Council over 

£55,000 that would otherwise have been spent on temporary accommodation; 

and 

• there is also a clear link between the cost of operating the night marshal 

scheme and the resulting improvement in rates of crime over the pilot period. 

These initiatives show that, where desired outcomes are built-in to the 

evaluation of their effectiveness, there is a better demonstration of VFM. 

66 The Council is not maximising the potential to deliver community safety outcomes 

through its community funding and procurement arrangements: 

• the Council has achieved good leverage of council community funding to 

increase the capacity of community groups. From 2004-2007, it is estimated 

that the six CIP groups drew down £84,000 of Council funding, but in turn, 

this has enabled projects totalling almost £4 million to take place. The funding 

criteria do not specify community safety related outcomes and actions and so, 

although many of these are youth sports, music and recreational projects and 

will have had diversionary benefits, this is not quantifiable: and 

• current plans to re-tender for street scene services and to seek new, 

long-term management arrangements for leisure services include quality 

related performance indicators and targets, such as for equity participation 

and satisfaction levels. Although negotiations are at an early stage, there has 

been no input to date from the community safety team and there are no plans 

to link payment by results against these quality outcomes and targets. 



67 This means that the Council is aware of the need to balance cost and quality 

considerations in its procurement and funding processes, but is not maximising 

the potential of these arrangements to deliver against its community safety 

priorities. 


Community Safety │ What are the prospects for improvement to the service? 25 

What are the prospects for improvement 

to the service? 

What is the service track record in delivering improvement? 

68 The Council has worked effectively with its partners, voluntary and community 

groups to achieve reduction in the British Crime Survey (BCS) comparator 

crimes. In total there were 1,153 fewer BCS comparator crimes committed in 

2007/08 than in 2003/04 an overall reduction of 29.5 per cent. Crimes have fallen 

in nine out of ten categories across this period with the exception of wounding, 

which has risen from 299 cases recorded in 2003/04 to 459 in 2007/08. In the last 

12 months of the CDRP strategy, there has also been an overall reduction of 

7 per cent with reductions also seen in seven out of ten categories: domestic 

burglary, theft of vehicle and theft from person have increased. This 

demonstrates a slowing of progress over the last 12 months but a solid track 

record over the last three years. 

69 Resident satisfaction levels in most areas demonstrate a good track record. 

Examples are: 

• in 2003/04, 72 per cent of respondents placed a low level of crime as the 

most important element contributing to a good quality of life; in 2006/07 this 

figure had fallen to 61 per cent; 

• residents were asked how safe they felt whilst out and about in the district. In 

2003/04, 33.5 per cent stated that they felt unsafe after dark; in 2006/07 this 

figure had improved to 31 per cent; 

• in 2003/04, 53 per cent of respondents felt that crime levels had worsened in 

the three years, only 49 per cent felt that they had worsened in the three 

years prior to 2006/07; and 

• residents were asked to identify which aspects of life in their local areas most 

needed improving. In 2003/04, lowering crime levels ranked first out of a list 

of 23 aspects but in 2006/07 lowering crime levels had fallen to 3rd place out 

of a list of 20 elements that most needed improving. 

These survey findings demonstrate that perceptions of crime are improving both 

in terms of its incidence but also its significance as a barrier to improved quality of 

life for local people. 


26 Community Safety │What are the prospects for improvement to the service? 

70 Resident surveys show that anti-social behaviour remains an issue and concern 

is growing about community cohesion: 

• in 2006/07 less people (58 per cent) agreed with the statement that people 

from different backgrounds got on well in their local areas compared to 

2003/04 (85 per cent); and 

• residents were asked whether aspects of anti-social behaviour were a 

problem in their areas. For example, although 49 per cent had felt, in 

2003/04, that teenagers hanging around on the streets were a problem, by 

2006/07, this figure had risen to 57 per cent. 

These findings justify the Council's continued focus on ASB (one of the annual 

priorities in 2007/08) and on wider community cohesion issues, such as the 

impending work on tension monitoring and its lobbying around the eco-town 

proposals. 

71 With support from the Council's community safety team, understanding within 

services of their responsibilities to tackle community safety issues is 

strengthening. Individual service areas are able to address community safety 

concerns in a cross-cutting manner, working with other Council services and 

partner organisations. This has resulted in numerous actions, but the community 

safety outcomes are not clear in most cases. For example: 

• leisure services are working with the County’s 4youth Services providing 

diversionary facilities and activities for young people during school holidays; 

• environmental services are working with planning on noise complaints; 

• maintaining and increasing safer car park award status for council car parks; 

• managing the ‘Best Bar None’ initiative which encourages good management 

practices and the use of competent and effective door staff; 

• CCTV which incorporates 37 cameras recently enhanced by a new recording 

system; and 

• seven new building developments awarded ‘Secure by Design’ over the last 

two years. 

These represent appropriate actions to address local community safety issues 

and concerns but the Council and its partners are unable to determine which 

initiatives are making the most difference. 

72 The partnership is delivering improved value for money over time. Performance 

has improved but total funding for the partnership is reducing: between 2007/08 

and 2008/09 funding has reduced from £247,000 to £171,000, a 31 per cent 

reduction. 



How well does the service manage performance? 

73 The Council sees community safety as central to delivering its overall vision and 

key priorities. Community safety is one of the Council's seven strategic themes in 

the corporate plan, which has an overall mission 'to improve the quality of life for 

those that live and work in the district'. Community safety is also reflected 

strongly in the Council's annual prioritisation process, which balances political 

priorities with issues that are of concern to the community. This means that the 

Council has identified community safety as a priority issue for the locality and has 

explicitly committed itself to addressing it. 

74 Strategic planning is good. The JSIA is a good process for identifying priority 

needs from a wide range of evidence and has resulted in four clear priorities for 

partners to address in the period 2008-2011: 

• safer neighbourhoods; 

• reducing crime; 

• safer roads; and 

• drugs and alcohol. 

75 Each priority is underpinned by key issues to address, such as reducing fear of 

crime and improving community engagement within the safer neighbourhoods 

theme although local actions and targets have still to be finalised. The JSIA has 

enabled the CSP to produce a good community safety strategy that can in turn, 

lead to improved outcomes. 

76 There is a good and wide-ranging understanding of community safety, although 

performance management arrangements are not sufficiently robust at individual 

member of staff level. Members, managers, partners and frontline staff can 

clearly explain the priorities for community safety and how improved performance 

can deliver wider benefits to the Council and community. This is also reflected in 

service plans, but service action plans (such as for sport and culture) and 

individual joint performance reviews (JPRs) are not consistently SMART to 

enable those members of staff to understand and quantify their specific role and 

contribution. This means that there is a strong and shared understanding of 

community safety and its potential contribution to deliver wider quality of life 

outcomes, but it is not always clear how other council services and individuals will 

be able to demonstrate their part in this process. 



77 The processes for target-setting are good but not all plans are sufficiently SMART 

and not all have been completed for the start of 2008/09. Targets are based on 

historical achievement, comparison with other areas, local priorities and the views 

of government. In the case of Local Area Agreement (LAA) targets, which have 

reward grant attached, the targets are negotiated with Government Office 

Yorkshire and Humber. LAA targets for crime related priorities are disaggregated 

to district level and so it is clear what each area needs to do to contribute to the 

county-wide target reductions. Non-crime LAA targets, such as for health 

priorities, have not been disaggregated and so this relies on a 'bottom-up' 

approach to assessing whether the overall targets are being met. Partnership 

action plans are still incomplete and not yet effectively guiding the work of staff 

and the community safety service plan and task group action plans are not 

sufficiently SMART to fill this gap until these plans are ready. 

78 There is an effective project and performance monitoring framework for 

community safety. The CSP's project monitoring and performance management 

framework meets the needs of the Selby District CSP and the LAA and this 

information is then used to inform the CSP, LSP, YNYSCF and the NYSP on 

progress toward achieving the local, county and national aims and objectives in 

LAA2. Some formal reporting takes place on a quarterly basis (LAA/LSP) but the 

Council reports performance to its Boards each month and the CSP performance 

group meets monthly with the county data analyst and the Council's own 

performance, such as in environment, is monitored weekly with managers. This 

means that underperformance against key targets can be identified at an early 

stage and corrective action taken, such as dealing with graffiti and fly-tipping 

hotspots. 

79 Scrutiny is working well for community safety. There is one Overview and 

Scrutiny committee, chaired by one of the independent members, and it has a 

clear forward plan that includes key milestones in the Council's calendar, such as 

the State of the Area address as well as topic based scrutiny activity. There are 

regular invitations to partner agencies including the Police and council contractors 

and the Committee commissions specific pieces of work to address areas of 

resident concern. A current example of this is a study of 'fear of crime' being 

undertaken by researchers within the policy and performance team to see if the 

Council can assess whether its actions and communications are reducing fear of 

crime or having the contrary effect of publicising and therefore, increasing it. The 

findings of the study will be available shortly and should help to steer the 

Council's and partners' approach to community engagement and communication 

about crime. 



80 The Council and its partners are focusing resources on priority areas based on 

data and intelligence gathering. Despite the limitations of some of the data, the 

Council and its partners are working together to try and manage performance, 

rather than just to monitor it. Low levels of crime do not often produce clear 

trends and 'hotspots' but the appointment of the county-wide analyst enables the 

partnership to track reports of crime on a monthly basis, by mini-zone area and to 

compare current performance against targets (including future projections of 

performance) and against the other NY CDRPs by each crime category. This 

data is used to inform the task groups about emerging issues and enables 

resources to be directed to the areas where it will have most impact. 

81 The Council and partnership are good at learning from others and sharing their 

own learning. The partnership regularly benchmarks its performance with a range 

of CDRP groups, but the volatility of the data does not often result in clear routes 

to improvement. Learning and sharing learning has been valuable: 

• the night marshal scheme was developed from similar pilot schemes in 

Halifax and Wakefield; 

• the partnership is adapting numerous schemes to its own needs, such as 

'Drive Alive' materials from NY and learning from pilots conducted in areas 

that have greater resources, such as the York part of the Selby and York BCU 

area' and 

• the Council is sharing its experience of developing the migrant community 

'welcome pack' and 'keeping safe' card with other NY partners. 

This shows that the Council and its partners are self aware and are willing to 

learn from others' experiences as well as to celebrate success. VFM is improved 

through some of this learning as the Council does not have to 'reinvent the 

wheel'. 

82 The partnership has made improvements based on self assessment. The 

partnership self assessed against the community safety minimum standards and 

has made improvements to its arrangements as a result of this. Weaknesses that 

were identified and addressed include: 

• the York and North Yorkshire Safer Communities Forum (YNYSCF) has 

agreed to cover the statutory responsibility of a county coordinating group; 

• a County Community Safety Agreement has been developed; and 

• all the responsible authorities attended the CSP Executive Board except the 

PCT; this has been addressed and the Director of Commissioning now 

attends CSP Executive Board. 

83 The Council has a robust system for dealing with and learning from complaints 

although community safety complaints (as opposed to incident reporting) are 

rare. There is a clear and well publicised three-step procedure based on 

escalation of the incident and an effective corporate complaints handling system 

which helps services to deal effectively with feedback and improvement. 



Does the service have the capacity to improve? 

84 The Service has the resources it currently needs to deliver its priorities for 

community safety. The Use of Resources assessment in 2006/07 judged the 

Council as scoring 3 out of 4 overall and for financial management and standing 

and noted the Council's ability to redirect resources to priority areas, including 

community safety. The Council is operating in a challenging financial environment 

and knows it needs to make more effective use of its resources to ensure that its 

longer term financial strategy is sustainable. Through good internal development 

and joint working, the appropriate skills and resources are in place for community 

safety. The senior community safety officer and co-ordinators are experienced 

and have good development opportunities. They have worked effectively with 

internal service providers to ensure that they understand how their services can 

contribute to improving community safety and cohesion. As community safety is 

one of the Council’s seven key strategic themes, this provides some certainty for 

the service’s future. More resources have been made available to the service to 

increase the communications officer’s role from part-time to full-time. This is 

intended to ensure that the activities of the service and partners are well 

publicised and reduce the public’s fear of crime. 

85 Future corporate capacity is being planned through good human resource 

planning and investment in staff and councillor development. The Council is 

addressing previous recruitment and retention problems in the service and other 

community safety related services such as development control through 

improving career grades and identifying funding for training to help develop staff 

into more senior roles. For example, the Council is part of the county wide 

mentoring scheme which provides a cost effective, quality and sustainable 

opportunity to build managerial capacity. Training in other relevant areas is being 

delivered to appropriate staff on areas such as s17 responsibilities, domestic 

violence awareness, child protection and customer services. 

86 The Council is continually improving its approach to equalities and diversity. It is 

working towards level 3 of the equality standard. It has reviewed the success of 

the previous equality impact assessments scheme, revised its toolkit for 

undertaking future assessments and is implementing a new programme. A 

current housing study for black and minority ethnic groups and vulnerable people, 

jointly conducted with North Yorkshire County Council, includes consultation with 

gypsies and travellers to ensure that there is sufficient future site capacity in the 

district; the results will inform an action plan to be developed in August 2008. A 

new equalities and diversity training rolling programme is about to be launched, 

where every member of staff will receive a half day refresher course which covers 

legislative changes and case studies. The Council also uses ‘birthday forums’, an 

innovative approach, to ensure that all staff attend a cross-cutting meeting with 

senior officers and councillors at least once a year to help keep them informed of 

any issues relating to equality and diversity and other important aspects of the 

Council’s business. 



87 The partnership has demonstrated a track record of successful delivery and has 

the appropriate skills and approach to be able to withstand difficulties. There have 

been recent tensions in the partnership, which has led to some current 

uncertainty, but partnership working and partner commitment to community safety 

remain strong. Recent tensions on the executive board of the partnership have 

led to the resignation of the chair, the Council's chief executive. At the time of this 

inspection, the post remained vacant, but key partners have stated their belief 

that the partnership is greater than individuals and that their commitment to work 

together to address community safety issues is undiminished. If the partnership 

can ensure that relationships remain supportive, it has the prospects of being 

able to deliver its future actions effectively. 

88 As supporting evidence for this, the Council and its partners are improving their 

capacity to deliver improvements in community safety through the new CSP, 

which has a more focused approach to allocating funding and offers good 

potential to involve a greater range of partners and to exploit their respective 

strengths, knowledge and experience. There is now a greater spread of 

responsibility amongst partners, such as the Primary Care Trust (PCT), 

probation, police and the voluntary/community sector taking theme priority lead 

roles. For example, the PCT is now taking a key lead on the drugs and alcohol 

theme which has previously been a cause for concern and has committed new 

investment through the county wide alcohol harm reduction strategy. Partners 

make good use of individual skills and joint training events have taken place to 

maximise impact. There are also plans to hold joint drop-in sessions with police in 

market towns to address fear of crime and a public perception that there is 

reduced access to police as result of station closures. 

89 The Council is allocating resources to mainstream community safety into core 

functions such as environmental services and housing. It is regenerating its three 

market towns and attracting inward investment to deliver improvements both in 

community safety and community cohesion. It is working with business partners 

to build employment growth which should help to mitigate the development of 

commuter housing with local employment opportunities. These initiatives are 

aimed at designing out crime and encouraging new residents to find local 

employment which in turn is aimed at reducing local tensions in some new 

housing developments. 



90 The JAGs and Community Investment Partnerships (CIPs) have been successful 

in building community capacity and enhancing the engagement of local 

communities on a range of topics. The Council is keen to build on this success 

and to broaden the range of issues that communities can raise and that the 

Council and its partners can respond to. To this end, the Council is exploring a 

broader community management board (CMB) model, that would operate in the 

six current CIP areas and aims to pilot the approach in Tadcaster and 

surrounding villages from October 2008. The new model would involve a 

devolved community fund and be underpinned by new community profiles, that 

are in development. The new model offers the potential to deliver greater VFM in 

a number of areas, but these are at an early stage and the benefits are as yet, 

unquantified. This collaborative approach is intended to become part of the 

Council's constitution, integrating several of the current public forums including 

the JAGs. Through this new proposed model, the Council is making a corporate 

commitment to mainstreaming multi-agency problem solving, but more 

importantly it will support councillors in their wards to facilitate partnership 

working and enable them to allocate resources to address locally agreed 

priorities. However there are tensions around these plans. The pilot is intended to 

assess these issues and gather community and partner views of the new 

structures and their impact, but there is significant concern that the 

current success and community ownership of the JAGs will be lost in the process. 

91 The Council recognises the need to ensure that staff, councillors, communities 

and partners fully understand the need for change and is in the process of 

implementing a ‘Hearts and Minds’ initiative to achieve this. If successful, this 

should help all stakeholders gain the understanding and support for the new 

plans. 

92 The Council has been successful in attracting new sources of external funding to 

address community safety priorities and concerns. These include: 

• £145,000 Home Office funding over the next three years to develop a 

community cohesion strategy and community tension monitoring system; 

• new initiatives to address cross-border crime through number-plate 

recognition and tracker systems; 

• additional BCU funding to invest in a range of partnership initiatives, led by 

the police, to combat crime and ASB; and 

• working with the Play Partnership to attract £200,000 of Big Lottery Funding 

from the national Children's Programme for play as well as funding from other 

sources. Projects that will be delivered under this programme over the next 

two years include a Play Ranger scheme, a mini-BMX track, an adventure 

play area, a play sensory garden and a natural play area. 

This funding increases the capacity of the Council and its partners to address 

continuing areas of concern.

Community Safety Inspection Report 2008 - pdf - Selby District Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?