Apathy holding back reporting of crime in Devon, officer says
Policing resources can be prioritised if there is evidence of anti-social behaviour, a council meeting has heard.Speaking at a North Devon Council's licensing and community safety committee, Devon and Cornwall Police urged people to report issues to help cut crime.Councillors said anti-social behaviour was on the rise in parts of Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and Braunton.Sgt Kevin Connar said: "Resources are finite, but if we know what is happening and told where the issues are we can better prioritise the resources we do have."
He added: "Sometimes there is apathy [about] reporting because people do not believe there is an outcome from it... as police we are duty bound to investigate reports of crime. "You must coach the electorate to report and support them to report."
Councillor Joy Cann said anti-social behaviour in Barnstaple had increased since street-based youth workers were scrapped as young people did not react well to police officers.However, police said in the last three weeks a new outreach youth work programme had begun in Barnstaple, and a youth centre had been refurbished and reopened. Councillor Pru Maskell suggested crime was shifting to rural areas because it was more closely monitored in towns, and said one child she had spoken to was terrified of going to school in Braunton.
Sgt Connar said when young people were not going to school out of fear it was an issue for schools to address as well as police and councillors.He said when dealing with young offenders it was important to recognise adverse childhood experiences, deprivation and immaturity.The force said it had seen benefits from employing a dedicated child-centred police investigator.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE We bought land behind our homes and erected a 6ft fence to keep yobs out... but then snobby neighbours complained to the council
A green verge used as a 'dumping ground' for drugs, alcohol, condoms and knives was bought by well-meaning residents to extend their rear gardens - but now they face losing thousands after the council refused permission to fence off the land. Five homeowners in Ramsey Court, in Slough, Berkshire and five more in the adjacent road, St Michael's Court, purchased an undeveloped strip of land at the rear of their properties from Taylor Wimpey last year. The neighbours claim the developer - which built the housing estates 30 years ago - was 'never interested' in maintaining the thick shrubs, which shot up to 20ft high in places. Many also complained the shrubland, which ran behind their properties in nearby Portland Close, looked 'unkempt' and blocked out sunlight into their homes, while becoming a magnet for antisocial behaviour. When they were offered the opportunity to purchase the land, the residents jointly agreed they would benefit from taking away the nuisance verge, while extending their rear gardens by two or more metres. A letter seen by MailOnline, which was sent by Taylor Wimpey to the homeowners, stated 'the land could make a very useful addition' by providing 'the opportunity to extend the size of your garden'. It added that while there would be a 'no build' restriction, this would not prevent residents from 'erecting garden sheds and other garden buildings'. But after buying the land and erecting a new 6ft fence, residents of Portland Close complained the fence was an 'eyesore' and petitioned council officials to have it taken down. The land-buying homeowners were advised they would need to apply for retrospective planning permission from Slough Borough Council to change the verge from 'a hedged boundary in a public use to private residential use.' But one by one, Slough Borough Council has refused all 10 planning applications for the fence. In their decision, planning officials said the fence had a 'detrimental visual impact' and was 'a harmful addition to the street scene' of Portland Close. The decision has now left the residents 'in limbo', with some fearing they may have spent thousands on a plot of land they may never fully benefit from. One resident, who has lived in Ramsey Court for 22 years, told MailOnline that he agreed to purchase the land with his neighbours because he believed 'it was a good thing' for the area. He said: 'It has always been an area that was unkempt. Taylor Wimpey never cut down the bushes. Many times we had to get a tree surgeon to come out, otherwise it would look really untidy and ugly, while no-one could even walk on the pavement. 'When they offered us the opportunity to buy it, we all agreed this would be a good thing and we could extend our gardens. Mine was only extended by about two metres, so nothing really fantastic, but I was happy to buy the land and make it look decent and pleasant. 'There used to be a lot of fly tipping, people taking drugs and drinking. On one occasion, I had a criminal jump over my fence while he was being chased by the police, which broke the panels.' Another, who has lived in a three-bed property on Ramsey Court for 31 years, said her neighbours are now in a dilemma over what will happen next. 'If they have to take that fence down and bring it back to where it was, who is going to look after the land in front of it? They've bought that land now. 'I think the decision is wrong. Those people have made it better for that road. I can't see how they can say it is worse and if they take the fence away it would just go back to being a dump, quite honestly. 'I feel sad for my neighbours. These people have spent a lot of money on that fence and this situation is causing them stress. I think it's totally unacceptable.' Among them is Danielle Robson, who moved into a property in St Michael's Court three years ago and has almost doubled her rear garden following the Taylor Wimpey deal. She told MailOnline that between purchasing the land, solicitor's fees and erecting the fence, she had spent £6,000. 'Because of this decision, we're just like in limbo thinking what can we do? 'We didn't used to get any light into our front room because the shrubs were so high. 'I know it's not nice getting rid of greenery, but it was unkempt and nasty and we were only going to do nice things with the extra garden. 'I'd be happy to compromise and move the fence back and make the other side gravel or something. 'It's just all been a bit stressful to be honest and I think it looks much nicer with the fence.' Another resident of Ramsey Court told how he was forever cutting back the greenery, while his original fence became so damaged by the proliferating bindweed he was forced to replace it. 'It was also just a real dumping ground,' he explained. 'I've personally picked up hundreds of silver nitrous oxide canisters, beer cans, bottles. One Christmas morning I even reported a dumped motorbike behind there to the police. 'The residents of Portland Close will tell you that it was a public area that was looked after and it was lovely. 'But that was not our experience. It was all brambles and shrubs. You couldn't use the pavement, while anyone in wheelchairs or with prams was forced into the road. 'There was also dogs' mess out there. We would sit in the backyard in the summer and you could really smell it. That verge has been a constant issue.' Asked his thoughts on the permission being turned down, the resident said he is most concerned about how he could be impacted legally. 'My wife spoke to a solicitor. If we are asked to push back the fence, from the step of the pavement to the fence line is still my land - and if someone twists their ankle or falls over, I could be liable. So how do I protect myself? 'If I can't put a fence up, how do I protect my liabilities? That can't be right, surely.' The resident said that while it was ultimately the council's decision, his neighbours in Portland Close - where house prices average £650,000 for a four-bed detached home - had 'campaigned' against the fence. 'They've always had a problem with us,' he said of Ramsey Court, where terraced homes cost £477,000 on average. 'They have this mentality that they're a better class of person, because these were originally British Airways shared ownership houses. 'They would often complain to the council about us. They don't like us parking in the road round the back of our homes, for example - even though its a public road. 'They hated the fence from the word go. One of them called it a "monstrosity" and said we had been underhanded, but we haven't been. 'They all jumped on the bandwagon and now they have succeeded. 'I'm sure the council will in time send an order to remove the fence and return the greenery. 'They [Portland Close residents] will expect it to be Chelsea Flower Show over there - but it wont be.' For their part, several residents in Portland Close told MailOnline they had supported the petition to remove the fence, arguing their neighbours had acted 'underhand' and greenery had been taken away from their road without their consultation. In letters to Slough Borough Council, they had also argued that the 'removal of trees, plants, and hedges has disrupted the local ecosystem and driven foxes into our gardens in search of shelter.' They added: 'This is a significant concern, as these animals may carry diseases and pose a potential threat to children's safety and public health.' One said: 'I've got no problem with them putting a fence up, but we should have been informed about it. 'I can't speak for everyone, but if we had been contacted we could have come to an arrangement where some of the hedge on this side was left. 'I think part of the problem was Taylor Wimpey contacted Ramsay and St Michael's about buying the land - but they never contacted us. 'Some have also put in back gates, which I don't know why they need them going into our road. Others have not, so it's not even uniform. 'They said they wanted to take away the hedges for security reasons, but now you can see right into their back gardens. At the moment it just looks awful. 'And how is taking away the hedges going to stop the antisocial behaviour? A hedge actually hides a lot of rubbish and it's far easier for somebody to climb over a fence than straight through a big hedge.' The homeowner added that while she was sympathetic her neighbours could lose the money they have invested into buying the land, 'those are the rules'. 'If you're spending a lot of money putting fencing up, surely you should check the planning rules? 'My opinion is that it's an eyesore. One minute we had a hedge and now we don't. I have actually found that quite upsetting.' In their decision, Slough Borough Council said: 'The development, by reason of the change of use from the pre-existing hedged boundary in a public use to private residential use is detrimental to the amenities of the area and by reason of the timber close boarded fencing and concrete plinth, comprises a harmful addition to the streetscene, poor siting, height, loss of soft landscaping and loss of informal green space. 'The development has a detrimental visual impact within the area and fails to improve the character or appearance of the surroundings and street scene at Portland Close. 'If planning permission is granted for this development it would make it difficult for the LPA to resist other similar forms of harmful development, resulting in further unacceptable impacts.' The homeowners are now considering launching an appeal against the decision.
BBC News
a day ago
- BBC News
Dispersal orders in place for Broadstairs, Ramsgate and Margate
Dispersal orders have been introduced in two Kent towns and one has been renewed in another, due to issues with anti-social Police has introduced the orders in Margate and Ramsgate for this weekend alongside renewing the extended police powers already in place in Broadstairs. The orders, which allow officers to instruct people to leave specific areas and to stop and search individuals without reasonable grounds, will be in place until Sunday measures were first introduced last Saturday in Broadstairs before a separate order was signed off the following day to cover Margate and the surrounding areas. Last weekend large groups of youths were filmed brawling and throwing chairs at restaurant staff in Broadstairs, where dispersal orders have been used throughout the Police said it had received various reports of underage street drinking, fighting and aggressive behaviour towards "terrified" staff at this period officers made five arrests, including one teenager charged with assaulting an officer. Inquiries to identify additional suspected offenders remains Commander for Thanet, Ch Insp Ian Swallow, said: "We urge parents to speak to their children and remind them of the importance of socialising sensibly..."As well as dispersal orders in place, people will also see an increased presence by police officers as they carry out high-visibility patrolling."
BBC News
a day ago
- BBC News
Police's Bedford park drinking Facebook post 'appalling'
A tongue-in-cheek police Facebook post that suggested people should bring "extra strength alcohol" to a park was branded "appalling" by a magistrate, a meeting message informed people that a community officer would be at St Peter's Green in Bedford looking out for anti-social the post was written like an invitation to a circus parade and jokingly invited people to commit extraordinary meeting of the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Panel was told a magistrate had criticised it for appearing to make light of vulnerable people and alcoholism. The police and crime commissioner for Bedfordshire said he did not know the specifics of the post, but added "it would appear not to be something that was appropriate".Bedfordshire Police was contacted for comment. 'Enjoy your beverage' The post, from the Bedford Community Policing Team, was published in May and began with the words, "Roll up Roll Up it's PC Pete's Pop-Up 'Party-Pooping' Parade at St Peter's Green!"It went on to say that PC Pete was "bringing his ASB (anti-social behaviour) disrupting engagement to St Peter's Green again this Saturday".It said people could "bring your extra strength alcohol" and "illegally enjoy your beverage from one of the many benches provided".The message pointed out there were no toilet facilities at the park, but if anyone was caught defecating "you may find yourself winning an all expenses paid trip to our custody suite".Towards the end of the post, it said: "All 'banter' aside, consuming alcoholic drinks, urinating and defecating in public spaces, and any other ASB will be dealt with accordingly."You have been warned!" During the meeting this week, Bedford borough councillor Tim Caswell, Liberal Democrat, read out a question to Police and Crime Commissioner John Tizard from someone he described as a "very experienced magistrate".The Local Democracy Reporting Service said that after quoting the Facebook post, Caswell added: "The magistrate's description of that was 'appalling' because it refers to some very vulnerable people and to alcoholism. "I just wondered what you thought of that and if you would ask the chief constable if he thinks that's an appropriate way for the force to message the public."Tizard, Labour, told the meeting that "prima facie, [the post] would appear not to be something that was appropriate".He said the source of the post would have to be verified but he would pass the complaint on. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
