Agenda item

To receive the report of the Community Safety Partnership and hear evidence from the external organisations.

The Chair welcomed students from St James’ School, who gave a presentation making the following points:  

• they felt unsafe and tried to avoid Sidwell St were possible due to alcohol, drug use, and violence;  

• they did not feel that there were any shops on Sidwell St that they would use;  

• the issues could be delt with by tackling anti-social behaviour, investing in the area, creating events, and working with the individuals living and working near Sidwell St;  

• they felt that the city was not designed for young people and there was little for them to do;  

• a lack of food options and affordable activities were also an issue; and 

• they thanked the committee for listening to their presentation and hope they had been able to read the notes that were provided.  

During discussion Members made the following points:  

• they thanked the students for their thoughtful presentation and report;  

• the city was not designed for young people and wanted to know what they would like on Sidwell St;  

• the empty shop spaces could provide spaces for teen hubs, designed and run by young people; and 

• parents would not allow a young person onto Sidwell St;  

The Chair thanked the students for their presentation, and asked the students if they would be happy for her to visit the school to follow up by sharing the outcomes of this meeting. 

The Chair invited Councillor Michael Mitchell to set out his proposal for the item under Standing Order No.45. In doing so he made the following points:  

• there had been a lengthy debate on this item previously; and  

• he wanted to reassure concerned citizens of the city that this evening’s scrutiny was a starting point and not an end point. 

The Chair invited InExeter and Inspector Devon and Cornwall Police as representatives of the Community Safety Partnership (CSP) ASB sub-group to give a presentation.

During their presentation they made the following points:  

• the students’ views were consistent with what was heard from businesses in the city centre;  

• there were significant concerns from local businesses about the rising rate of ASB and that this was going unchecked;  

• they wanted Exeter to maintain its reputation of being a safe city;  

• they felt that students were far more at risk at home online that they were on Sidwell Street;  

• a key activity was hotspot policing which had been in place since May 2024 and would continue until at least May 2026;  

• the City Council’s Community Safety team carried out daily visible patrols and they had been working with the police regarding ASB and shop theft;  

• the St. Sidwell Centre’s garden was becoming a hotspot for ASB;  

• they were working with Exeter City Council and the police to address encampments;  

• the city Council’s CCTV control room was monitored 24/7 and staff were taking a pro-active approach in identifying perpetrators of crime;  

• Exeter City Council had introduced the Need Help signs, which gave people direct contact to the control centre;  

• there had been a campaign to help de-stigmatise people causing ASB led by the Inspector, which helped people understand that they were a community of marginalised and vulnerable individuals;  

• there had been fewer issues in the Sidwell Centre’s garden following interventions over the summer;  

• there had been an ASB spike in August due to decreased ability to fill hotspot patrols;  

• there were enhanced patrols and focus in nine key areas;  

• the Community Safety Team were SIA accredited, first aid trained and were able to signpost vulnerable individuals to relevant support agencies;  

• there was a perception of not feeling safe in the city centre, which existed partly due to media coverage;  

• they had met with key partners in the city to discuss those with the highest demand;  

• work needed to be done to ensure there were no barriers to access;  

• 30 streetlights had been reported as not working during the University’s Welcome Week, the repair of these would be a quick-win and would help people feel safer at night; and  

• an update on progress and activity would be given to the Committee in 12 months.  

In response to Members’ questions, the following answers were provided:  

• the slide with dispersals within the PSPO area detailed the reasons for dispersal and whilst most could be classed as ASB some were also criminal therefore described separately; 

• they were grateful for councillor involvement in local meetings;  

• it was clear that better communication was needed about the range of activities being undertaken to tackle ASB;  

• people were not always confident on whether to report ASB if they felt it was low level;  

• it had been proven that when dispersed ASB did not move on to other areas, and ASB in the city centre would not be considered ASB in other areas;  

• The Police officer present carried out 1 hour of foot patrol a day and there was evidence that 20 minutes of police visibility deterred ASB but any longer did not have further impact;  

• there was a backlog in courts and there was finite funding for overtime but it was centrally government funded; and 

• needle bins did not encourage drug use.  

The Chair stated that Questions from the Public would now be heard before the remainder of the evidence on Anti-Social Behaviour in the City Centre.