Agenda and minutes

This meeting will be filmed for live and / or subsequent broadcast on the Council’s website.  The whole of the meeting will be filmed, except where there are confidential or exempt items, and the footage will be on the website for 12 months.  A copy of it will also be retained in accordance with the Council’s data retention policy.

If you attend and make a representation to the meeting, you will be deemed to have consented to being filmed.  When admitted to the Council Chamber you are also consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for livestreaming and / or training purposes.  If you do not wish to have your image captured, please contact Democratic Services prior to attending the meeting.

If there are any technical difficulties with the livestreaming, the meeting will still proceed.

The Chair announced to those present that the meeting would be livestreamed.

The evacuation procedure was noted.

There were no interests declared.

To approve the minutes of the last meeting held on 30 April 2026.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the Community Safety Select Committee meeting which was held on 30 April 2026 for approval and signature.

AGREED that the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 30 April 2026 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Presented by the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Assistant Director – Early Help, Safeguarding and Children in Our Care, and supported by the SBC Strategic Health & Wellbeing Manager, consideration was given to a draft Action Plan setting out how the agreed recommendations from the recently concluded review of Children affected by Domestic Abuse would be implemented, including success measures and target dates for completion.

Noting involvement from both Harbour (the local domestic abuse support service that was commissioned by SBC) and the Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees Safeguarding Children Partnership (HSSCP) in collating this draft document, specific attention was drawn to the following:

·       Recommendation 3 (Options be explored in order to secure funding for the continuation / enhancement of Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA) services within local health settings (hospitals and primary care)): This recommendation had already been achieved following confirmation that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for Cleveland had agreed to extend funding for the University Hospital of North Tees IDVA by a further six months.  Collaboration with NHS partners regarding future steps beyond this extended period would continue.

·       Recommendation 8 (SBC provides assurance to key partners and all Elected Members around the changes to its ‘front door’ to services for children and their families (note: to be known as the ‘Family Help Point’ from 1 April 2026), including how existing partnership arrangements will be maintained / enhanced): This recommendation was already deemed achieved following briefings given to SBC Elected Members and key partners on the changes to the Council’s ‘front door’ to services for children and their families.

Regarding recommendation 3 (above), the Committee commended officers and the OPCC for Cleveland for the prompt agreement to extend funding for the local hospital IDVA, particularly given the clear benefits the role brought to those who had experienced domestic abuse.  This was a very positive development which addressed a key element of the Committee’s findings.

In terms of recommendation 4 (All organisations improve their recording of details (including a child’s age) of domestic abuse-related referrals made to the Stockton-on-Tees Children’s Hub (CHUB) (note: to be known as the ‘Family Help Point’ from 1 April 2026) and local support service, Harbour (even when domestic abuse is only one of several reasons for a referral being submitted), the Committee queried if there had been any early progress in relation to data retention.  Members were informed that data on referrals featuring domestic abuse factors was being retained within the new Family Help Point, with information produced weekly and reviewed on a monthly basis.

From a wider SBC perspective, the Committee asked how the proposed actions would feed into domestic abuse-related work being undertaken as part of the Council’s Powering Our Future (POF) initiative.  SBC officers stated that domestic abuse was being looked at as a risk factor for severe and multiple disadvantage in adulthood, and would continue to be a key consideration around early help discussions / planning.  The Committee then approved the  ...  view the full minutes text for item CSS/12/26

Consideration was given to the assessments of progress on the implementation of the recommendations from the Committee’s previously completed review of Welcoming and Safe Town Centres.

Presented by the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Service Manager – Public Protection, and supported by the SBC Community Safety Manager, this was the first progress update following the Committee’s agreement of the Action Plan in May 2025.  Supplemented by associated presentation slides, developments regarding actions linked to the Committee’s recommendations were highlighted as follows:

·       Recommendation 1 (Future refreshed versions of relevant Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) long-term strategies (e.g. Stockton-on-Tees Plan, Community Safety Strategy, Inclusive Growth Strategy) identify and reflect the unique nature of each of the Borough’s six town centres, and outline how SBC and its partners will maximise a sense of ‘welcoming’ and ‘safe’ within these spaces (acknowledging the key findings of this review)): The uniqueness of the Borough’s six town centres was recognised within several key SBC strategy documents, a number of which (e.g. Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy, Community Safety Strategy, and Inclusive Growth Strategy) had been updated and published since the Committee concluded its review.

Learning from Operation Shield (a Stockton town centre initiative (referenced within the revised Community Safety Strategy 2025-2027) which aimed to improve safety through enhanced visibility, proactive engagement, and co-ordinated responses to issues such as anti-social behaviour (ASB) and vulnerability) was informing how similar principles could be adapted in other town centres, proportionate to their scale and need (e.g. feasibility discussions were ongoing over whether Stockton’s ‘Reducing the Strength’ campaign should also be rolled out in Norton town centre).

·       Recommendation 2 (Utilising existing partnerships (including engagement with local business forums / groups), consideration be given over how to maximise the annual events and markets programme to provide further opportunities for increased footfall / exposure to town centre environments): Aided by the identification of a Single Point of Contact (SPoC) from relevant SBC departments, the Council engaged enthusiastically with local partners to improve footfall into the Borough’s town centres.  Several mechanisms enabled this collaboration including the Business Crime Reduction Partnership (BCRP), Stockon Business Improvement District (BID), Security Forum, Operation Shield, Pub Watch, Shop Watch, and daily partnership meetings.  SBC Community Safety officers had contributed and led on problem-solving projects to address issues in both Thornaby and Billingham town centres, liaising with the police, housing providers, fire service, SBC Town Centre Regeneration, and SBC Public Health.

SBC Community Safety was embedded into event planning considerations (e.g. Stockton International Riverside Festival (SIRF), Yarm Fair) and was represented at meetings to maximise the annual events and markets programme which provided further opportunities for increased footfall / exposure to town centre environments.  Presentation data showed higher footfall in April 2026 compared to May 2025 for all six town centres apart from Norton (which remained the same) – Billingham, Thornaby and Yarm had seen significant rises compared to nearly a year ago, whilst a more modest rise had been experienced in Ingleby Barwick.  ...  view the full minutes text for item CSS/13/26

To consider further information in relation to this scrutiny topic from the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Community Services, Environment and Culture directorate, as well as initial feedback from the ongoing SBC Ward Councillor survey.

The second evidence-gathering session for the Committee’s review of Community Participation Budget (CPB) and Ward Transport Budget (WTB) considered a further submission from the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Community Safety, Environment and Culture directorate.  Presented by the SBC Highways Manager, and supported by the SBC Highways, Transport and Design Manager, information covered the following:

·       Project Delivery (Schemes in progress)

o   WTB: A total of 36 schemes were in progress (nearly half of which were now in the programme for delivery, with the remainder being almost evenly split between the ‘investigate / consult’, ‘further information required’, or ‘awaiting programming’ stages), totalling just over £175,000.  44% of these were in relation to parking restrictions, 42% for highway engineering, 11% for traffic calming, and 3% for resurfacing.

o   CPB: 95 schemes were currently being worked through (the vast majority of which were now in the programme for delivery, with a very small number either still being investigated / consulted upon or requiring further information), totalling just over £165,000.  57% concerned planting projects, 15% for CCTV, 8% in relation to boulders and bollards, 4% for bins, and 4% for benches.  The remaining 12% was marked ‘other’ for projects involving different themes / categories.

·       Project Delivery (Proposals not taken forward): There had been 48 proposals not taken forward in the last 14 months (covering the full 2024-2025 financial year and the 2025-2026 financial year to date).  21 were not progressed for reasons such as cost eligibility or a lack of evidence (e.g. a demonstrable safety issue), 17 had technical constraints (e.g. the proposal conflicted with another planned scheme), and 10 did not proceed due to other priorities (e.g. re-direction of funds to alternative schemes).  It was important to note that significant officer time / resource was required on an application even if a decision was subsequently made not to proceed.

·       Eligibility Criteria

o   CPB: Schemes should focus on local community and environmental improvements, must demonstrate local need and community benefit, and must be feasible and deliverable.  Decisions to proceed with proposals which created ongoing revenue or maintenance costs were limited, and some schemes required third-party maintenance arrangements.

o   WTB: This budget was restricted to transport, safety and accessibility schemes and must be supported by evidence (e.g. safety data / speed surveys).  Proposals required full technical assessment and design, and must be safe, compliant and deliverable on the highway network.  The WTB was not suitable for non-transport or revenue-based schemes.

·       Project Summary (Spend profile): As previously stated, CPB schemes costing just over £165,000 and WTB schemes totalling just over £175,000 were in development and committed, whilst the cost of those projects that were not progressed came to nearly £432,000.  It was emphasised that any underspend in relation to either budget reflected schemes that were either in development or constrained by delivery factors, not by a lack of demand / interest.

·       Revenue Implications: Proposed new schemes had the potential to create ongoing revenue costs which may in turn influence eligibility.  ...  view the full minutes text for item CSS/14/26

Consideration was given to the minutes of the Safer Stockton Partnership (SSP) meetings which took place in January and March 2026.

AGREED that the minutes of the Safer Stockton Partnership (SSP) meeting which took place in January and March 2026 be noted.

CHAIR’S UPDATE

The Chair stated that the executive summary of the Committee’s final report following its review of Children affected by Domestic Abuse had been presented to the SBC Executive Scrutiny Committee where several recommendations were highlighted (including the call for options to be explored in order to secure funding for the continuation / enhancement of Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA) services within local health settings).

WORK PROGRAMME  2026-2027

Consideration was given to the Committee’s current work programme.  The next meeting was due to take place on 2 July 2026 where the final evidence-gathering session was scheduled for the ongoing Community Participation Budget and Ward Transport Budget review.

AGREED that the Chair’s Update and Community Safety Select Committee Work Programme 2026-2027 be noted.