Agenda item

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1.    Endorses the Safer Rotherham Partnership Strategy and recommends it to Council for approval.

2.    Notes the requirement for scrutiny of the Safer Rotherham Partnership Annual Report, which is discharged by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board.

3.    Approves the ongoing informal consultation to capture service user voices throughout the duration of the plan.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Alam, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Finance and Community Safety introduced the item outlining the purpose and scope of the new Community Safety Strategy. He explained that the strategy was developed to guide the work of the Safer Rotherham Partnership (SRP) over the next three years, with a focus on enhancing safety, protecting vulnerable individuals, and tackling serious violence and organised crime.

He emphasised that the strategy was built on an evidence-based approach, incorporating:

• Community safety data
• Partnership intelligence
• Extensive consultation with residents, stakeholders, and organisations

The strategy identified three core priorities:

1. Safer neighbourhoods
2. Tackling violence, abuse, and exploitation
3. Preventing offending and building resilience

Additionally, it included three cross-cutting themes:

• Online crime
• Service user voice
• Equality of access to services

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Finance and Community Safety highlighted that the strategy aligned with statutory requirements and reflected local need. He noted that the SRP would report annually to the Council and OSMB to ensure transparency and accountability.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries on the points raised.

The Vice Chair queried why the wording under antisocial behaviour in the strategy was less robust than that used for combating alcohol and substance misuse, asking why stronger language to reflect a zero-tolerance approach wasn’t included?

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Finance and Community Safety explained that the strategy aimed to address both actual antisocial behaviour and public perceptions of safety. It was noted that while some concerns were perception-based, the Council maintained a zero-tolerance stance on actual incidents.

The Head Of Service Community Safety and Regulatory Services clarified that the strategy included both quantitative data (e.g. incident reports) and qualitative data (e.g. perceptions of safety). It was emphasised that the partnership was committed to reducing antisocial behaviour through coordinated interventions and monitoring.

Councillor Lelliott expressed support at the inclusion of perception data in the strategy, arguing that it was essential to address both actual and perceived safety concerns to encourage public confidence in town centres.

Councillor Blackham expressed concern that the strategy might downplay real antisocial behaviour by focusing too much on perceptions. He cited examples such as quad bike nuisance and rural crime, which were clearly not perception based. In response the Chair acknowledged the challenge of distinguishing between perception and reality, noting that antisocial behaviour occurred across all wards and required the appropriate police response.

Councillor Yasseen queried why there were no baseline key performance indicators (KPIs) included in the strategy. The Head Of Service Community Safety and Regulatory Services explained that KPIs were being developed in action plans under each priority and would be reported annually to OSMB. In response to a follow-up question regarding how the consultation feedback influenced the priorities, it was confirmed that the consultation had influenced the inclusion of rural crime and perceptions of safety. In a subsequent question Councillor Yasseen asked why ward councillors were not more directly involved in the consultation? The Head Of Service Community Safety and Regulatory Services stated that emails had been sent to all elected members inviting input and offering to attend ward meetings, though acknowledged that not all members may have seen or responded.

The Vice Chair followed up his earlier point vigorously requesting that the strategy’s wording on antisocial behaviour should be strengthened to match the tone used for other priorities, such as substance misuse. He proposed a formal recommendation to Cabinet to revise the wording. The Chair put the recommendation to the vote, and it was not carried.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations that Cabinet:

1. Endorses the Safer Rotherham Partnership Strategy and recommends it to Council for approval.

2. Notes the requirement for scrutiny of the Safer Rotherham Partnership Annual Report, which is discharged by the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board.

3. Approves the ongoing informal consultation to capture service user voices throughout the duration of the plan.