Agenda item

Purpose: To consider how the priorities are applied in terms of service delivery..

Sean Murphy presented the PPP Delivery Plan Update (Agenda Item 7). The Committee had received the strategic assessment for the service in June 2021, which set out local priorities - for Wokingham, these were only set up to the end of March as part of the Shared Service. The Delivery Plan provided some detail about how those priorities would be delivered. He explained that the Service reflected the National Intelligence Model, which was based on: prevention; intelligence gathering; and enforcement. Indicators were provided for each of the priorities set out in the Service Plan together with proposals for how these would be delivered. Although this was a high level plan, if it was approved, each aspect would be supported by a more detailed project delivery plan. It was highlighted that Covid Recovery was not included within the Delivery Plan, but it was referenced in the report. Members were asked to note that an additional priority had been added around Health and Safety at Work. Communications were seen as important and a running theme throughout the document. It was stressed that implementation of the Delivery Plan would be contingent upon the Service being able to return to business as usual activities.

The Chairman noted there were errors in the covering report relating to the equalities, environmental and health impacts – these should be positive rather than negative.

Councillor Rick Jones sought clarification about the difference between themes, priorities and projects. Sean Murphy explained that there were both horizontal and vertical priorities listed. Cross-cutting priorities included: e-crime; vulnerable adults and children; climate change; safer streets; and safeguarding. He noted that when the inter-authority agreement had been set up in 2017, a number of starting priorities had been agreed, which were the themes. These were fed into the priorities, and in turn to the projects, which were listed under each of the priorities. Each project would have its own delivery plan and objectives.

Councillor John Porter asked if action on overweight vehicles would extend to 7.5 and 3.5 tonne vehicles and Transit vans, and how these would be weighed. Sean Murphy explained that operations were targeted at all goods vehicles. Portable weigh-pads belonging to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency had been used on a recent operation, but usually, public weighbridges would be used and these were tested for accuracy on a regular basis. Action was also taken to enforce weight restrictions.

Councillor Porter asked whether all areas of Bracknell Forest, Wokingham Borough  and West Berkshire could be made No Cold Calling Zones to protect vulnerable residents. Sean Murphy explained that cold calling was legal, so there needed to be clear reasons for any new restrictions (e.g. reported incidents), and such areas needed to be clearly defined. Local residents had to be surveyed on any proposal and new zones were usually created where at least two thirds of residents were in favour. Toby Green noted that there were quite a few No Cold Calling Zones in the PPP area, which had been instigated following requests from the Police and / or complaints from residents. These zones tended to have significant numbers of elderly / vulnerable residents. Zones could be part of a road, a full road, or several roads. These were denoted by signs and residents were given stickers they could display in their windows. It was noted that the last criminal action on cold calling was taken against a double glazing company, which was charged with aggressive practices. Councillor Porter asked if the Zones were listed on the PPP website. Toby Green explained that each Zone had signs at each end and each house had a sticker and he thought that Zones were also listed on the PPP website.

Councillor Porter asked about enforcement against dog breeders who illegally clipped dogs’ ears. Sean Murphy explained that this was a breach of the Animal Welfare Act and the PPP was responsible for enforcing this and could take enforcement against licensed / unlicensed breeders in the area. However, the RSPCA normally handed enforcement in relation to pets.

Councillor Graham Bridgman highlighted an error in the Delivery Plan relating to the second bullet point under Safer Streets on page 9. He also highlighted that the Domestic Abuse Board had suggested private housing rental agreements should be worded to exclude tenants if there was domestic violence, and the PPP may wish to consider this as part of its Delivery Plan. Furthermore, he highlighted that West Berkshire, Wokingham and Reading were in the process of adopting the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy and there were some common themes such as safeguarding, vulnerable adults and children, childhood obesity, alcohol and tobacco consumption, etc. He suggested that the PPP should work closely with Public Health colleagues to address these issues. Sean Murphy confirmed that he was aware of the content of the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy and action was already underway to address many of these issues in terms of education and enforcement. He stated that in Bracknell, the PPP was looking to expand its Public Health education remit and discussions had taken place with the Director of Public Health for Berkshire East.

Sean Murphy highlighted that the Delivery Plan only applied to Wokingham until 31 March. He confirmed that he had spoken to colleagues at Wokingham about how it would apply to services such as Trading Standards going forward, and he reassured Members that there would be a smooth transition.

The Committee RESOLVED to approve the plan subject to the proposed corrections.