The
Director of Environment and Commercial Services and the Operational Community
Safety Manager will be in attendance to provide an overview of the Neighbourhood Warden Service.
Minutes:
As part of the Panel’s review into the Neighbourhood Warden Service, the Head of Stronger Communities provided an overview of the Neighbourhood Safety Team and made the following points:
• There were 50 neighbourhood wardens who carried out a number of roles including supporting vulnerable people i.e. refer to and link them to specialist support services such as Homeless, Substance Misuse, Debt Management, Domestic Abuse, Routs to Employment/Work, Health services and Support victims of crime and antisocial behaviour.
• Wardens could also act as professional witnesses as they were all equipped with Body Cameras.
• Wardens were able to issue parking fines as well as offer advice and guidance for dog fouling.
• They were also responsible for enforcing the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in the TS1 area which covered a range of different contraventions. One of the main drivers of the PSPO was to change people’s behaviour.
• An example of welfare visits carried out with vulnerable members of the community whereby an elderly person with mobility problems had been checked upon by the Warden Service whereby it was found they were unwell and got them medical help.
• The service also comprised four Environmental Neighbourhood Safety Wardens that, in addition to the aforementioned duties, dealt with fly tipping enforcement, abandoned vehicles and stray dogs.
• The service also comprised seven Neighbourhood Safety Officers who were responsible for developing multi-agency action plans and responding to community issues. They also worked closely with elected Members and other key partners in order to investigate complaints, anti-social behaviour and to develop prosecution packs were appropriate.
• In terms of partnership working, the Warden Service also comprised a town centre team whose expansion had been funded from the Tees Valley Combined Authority. The driver for this expansion was the need for increased support in the TS1 area.
• The funding also helped to provide two police officers who worked in the town centre and with the Neighbourhood Wardens and Neighbourhood Safety Officers.
• The town centre team also worked closely with local businesses.
• The Wardens had gained Police Accreditation from the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police which makes the Wardens a greater part of the wider police family.
• The Wardens had also taken part in COVID Marshalling in conjunction with Park Rangers and Community Hub staff.
• The Warden Service also formed part of the Locality Working model and worked closely with Selective Landlord Licensing.
• The Wardens also worked closely with Schools and community group to raise awareness of various crimes in the hope of reducing them.
A Member queried how the Warden Service was deployed around the town as it appeared that in some cases they were not present. It was clarified that given the funding from the Tees Valley Combined Authority it was intended for the TS1 area that this was where most of the Warden provision was focused. However, it was also confirmed that the service was patch orientated so Wardens could be deployed where they were needed.
A Member queried if the Wardens had been subjected to violent acts. It was confirmed that the Wardens had not, although there were examples of Wardens experiencing verbal abuse, but that this was fairly common. It was also confirmed that Wardens were trained in how to risk assess situations and to remove themselves from dangerous situations if required.
A Member queried if the Wardens were equipped with Body Cams and if there was a way they could approach communities to communicate their successes which may assist with reducing concerns of reporting issues.
It was confirmed that all Wardens were equipped with Body Cams which could be used to provide evidence in court cases. It was also confirmed that the Warden Service feedback to communities about issues that had been reported, which could include leaflet drops. The Head of Stronger Communities was open to suggestions from Members on how this could be improved.
A Member queried how many fines and fixed penalty notices had been issued in the last year. It was confirmed that the information would be provided to the Member separately.
The Chair queried of the Warden Service had been benchmarked against other authorities. It was confirmed that given the nature of the Warden Service and the fact that Councils had a great deal of flexibility in how they managed their own operations, it was difficult to benchmark against others. Examples of issues that were present in Middlesbrough but not present in many other areas was selective landlord licensing.
It was also confirmed that Middlesbrough’s Warden Service regularly spoke to other Warden Services both in Teesside and further afield to understand best practice operations.
Service provision was also determined by identification of need, with the example of the Public Space Protection Order and Selective Landlord Licensing being cited.
The Head of Stronger Communities introduced the Council’s new Senior Warden who was asked if he would be bringing anything new to his role at Middlesbrough.
Having previously worked at Stockton Council it was confirmed that the tools available to Warden Services were the same but that he would bring his experiences to use those tools in a way that suited Middlesbrough’s communities.
It was commented that Middlesbrough had not made great use of Community Protection Orders and that the new Senior Warden had led on this during his tenure at Stockton Council. Members were made aware that Community Protection Orders could be used for a wide variety of reasons including waste accumulation on a private property or for persistent anti-social behaviour.
ORDERED:
1. That information about numbers of fixed
penalty notices be provided to the Panel
2. The information
presented be noted.