Agenda item

Report of the Director of Royal Parks.

This report provides the Committee with an overview of the role of the Royal Parks in overseeing and regulating Primrose Hill Park, and current strategies for stakeholder engagement.

Consideration was given to the reports of the Director of Royal Parks and Director of Public Safety.

Consideration was also given to the deputation request and statement referred to in Item 5 above.

The following responses were given by the deputee to members questions:

• There was a need to collect and share proper data relating to crime and anti-social behaviour in Primrose Hill Park and then determine whether the data justified gating the park. This was not currently happening.
• The crime statistics shared in the Safer Parks Panel meetings indicated that crime in the park was negligible. There was nothing standing out from the data which justified gating the park.
• The crime data indicated that there had been a couple of indecent exposures. There had been talk in the local community about 2 rapes in the area which had been discussed at a meeting at which no one from the local community appeared to be present.
• It was very concerning for women and people living in the area to hear that rapes were happening. There was a world of difference between indecent exposure and a rape.
• The survey data used in the deputation statement was from the whole borough rather than Primrose Hill ward, because people from across Camden used the park.
• Accurate crime data from the area was not easily available. It had been a challenge getting accurate crime data before decisions were made particularly from Regents Park and Primrose Hill.
• The rumours in the local community were that there was inaccurate crime data around Primrose Hill.

Invited to comment on the crime statistics in Primrose Hill Police Inspector Stevie Bull-of the Neighbourhood Policing Central North Borough Command Unit (BCU) informedthe Committee that between 1^st January 2023 and 30 June 2023 a rough breakdown of the figures indicated that 131 calls had been received by the Police relating to the park, 28 of which related to anti-social behaviour and crime. About half of the crime calls were to do with phone theft. It was highlighted that due to challenges experienced the data was compiled manually.

Police Inspector Nick McLaughlin from the Royal Parks Operational Unit commented that when looking at the crime statistics for Primrose Hill it was not a hotspot for sexual offending, rape and crime in general. The common themes in the area were issues with alcohol and mental health, the numbers in the area remained low. The issue in the area was more of a noise issue rather than a crime issue.

He informed the Committee that he was happy to make a commitment to sharing accurate data with Camden Council officers and the Royal Parks Team. Expressing his surprise that this was not already being done because local ward Councillors sat on Safer Parks Panels across London. He said the information was available.

Action By: Police Inspector Royal Parks Operational Unit

He was happy to provide more detailed information on crime stats to the Committee.

Action By: Police Inspector Royal Parks Operational Unit

Answering further members questions the deputee gave the following information

·       Primrose Hill Park was an area of low crime in comparison to other areas in the borough, the numbers appeared to have been distorted by repeated reports of minor noise and anti-social behaviour which appeared to have been exaggerated.

·       It was a safe environment for young people and she was of the view that it was safe to walk through the park at night.

The Community Safety Manager made the following comments in response to the deputations and members questions:

·       The Community Safety Service had not been part of the conversation about gating Primrose Hill Park.

·       The Council could only respond to the issues reported to it.

·       For several years, the Council’s Community Safety service had tried to encourage the local community to improve the formal reporting of issues such as noise nuisance, anti-social behaviour (ASB) and criminal activity by reporting to the Police and the Council. That was the only way an effective picture could be formed to decide on the partnership response.

·       Since the pandemic, all boroughs across London had created a Summer Violence Plan and although Primrose Hill was not classed as a hotspot of violence, was down as a standing item on the Summer Violence Plan because of the level of community reporting from the area.

·       There had always been discussions about temporary fencing and gating of the park in response to reporting of noise nuisance, ASB and crime.

·       In relation to sexual offences in the area, the Police reported that issues of risk assessment to the wider community and victim anonymity were considered when deciding whether to publicise this to the wider community.

·       In terms of a Community Management Plan, this was already being done in part through the Summer Violence Plan. The Community Safety Service had been working closely with the Police, they would also involve the Royal Parks Operational Unit to put in place resources to respond to issues raised in Primrose Hill Park.

·       There was a need for additional resources as identified in the deputation, officers were happy to take an action point form this. To coordinate a multiagency group that considered residents views and put together the available resources from these organisations to see what could be done to provide a coordinated response to what gets reported with regards to Primrose Hill.

·       The deputations at the meetings had assisted in creating a more initiative-taking strategic platform to work from. This had now become more of a decision-making forum which had not been there previously.

·       There were data protection regulation issues with sharing crime statistics in a brief period over a small geographical area. However, providing a broader picture, such as patterns over extended periods was something that could be done.

·       The Community Safety Service had received increased reports of drug activity across the borough in the last 6 months.

The Chair informed the deputee that the Committee did not have the power to ask the Council and the Planning Committee to refuse planning permission to Royal Parks, that was a matter for the Planning Committee to decide based on the planning merits of the application. He hoped that the various groups in the Primrose Hill would work together to form a collective vision for the area for the future.

The Committee thanked the deputee for attending and for her deputation.

Andrew Scattergood (Chief Executive Officer), David McLaren (Chief of Staff), Alison Jeremy (Director of Communications) Royal Parks were in attendance and provided the following responses to members questions.

·       With regards to Royal Parks announcement in the press of the installation of gates on Primrose Hill Park the day after the Council’s scrutiny Committee meeting, they had tried to engage with the Council in advance of their statement but without success.

·       Royal Parks apologised for the circumstances regarding declining the invitation to the Scrutiny meeting and subsequent press announcement regarding installation of gates on Primrose Hill the following day.

·       They explained that the invitation to attend the meeting had been issued sometime before and Royal Parks had not connected the meeting date with the timing of the announcement, remarking, that it had not been thought through. Royal Parks would check with their colleagues to find out when the invitation to attend the Scrutiny Committee had been issued and report back to the Committee.

Action By: David McLaren Royal Parks -Chief of Staff

·       Given the circumstances of what happened it was not an attempt to avoid scrutiny by the Council. Indeed, Royal Parks had repeatedly sought the views of the Council throughout the engagement process on many occasions and their view on Royal Parks managing of the situation at Primrose Hill but failed to get a formal response from the Council.

·       Royal Parks had also engaged with a number of Councillors over the years meeting on sites at Primrose Hill providing responses to the Council and Councillors.

·       With regards to the decision to install gates, Royal Park had sought to seek a balanced view through the engagement strategy. There were differing views about whether to install gates, Primrose Hill Park was witnessing large numbers of people making use of the park creating noise issues.

·       It was felt that the balanced proportionate approach was to put in gates that would provide the infrastructure rather than temporary fencing so access could be controlled into the parks.

·       Royal Parks had announced that from British Summer time i.e., the end of March to the October period gates would be locked in the evenings at the weekend on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.

·       Royal Parks would monitor and review the situation with the gates and commit to engage with the Council before any further decision was taken.

·       Royal Parks conducted a comprehensive engagement strategy carrying out a survey which ran from 15^th November 2022 for 6 weeks.

·       The survey was published on Royal Park’s website, through social media platforms and press announcements. Paper copies were also sent out to residents.

·       The survey was sent to 37,000 people/residents, 1437 completed the survey, the response rate was about 4%

·       With regards to toilets, the parks toilets were open till 9pm at night, this appeared to be the first time this had been raised as an issue. There was the need to factor in long hours staff worked.

·       There was no outreach work planned.

·       Royal Parks job was to manage the parks and did not have an enforcement role. There were Park Rangers that were an additional resource and their job was to educate rather than enforcement.

·       The Royal Parks Operational Unit which was part of the Metropolitan police operated in the park and shared the data.

·       The local police, Safer Neighbourhood BCU meet regularly with the Royal Parks Operational Unit to discuss issues across the parks. There were lots of areas that were looked after in addition to Primrose Hill.

Police Inspector Nick McLaughlin (Royal Parks Operational Unit) commented that he did not dispute that there were some issues in the area, it was a place where young people gathered during the summer months, during the pandemic it had been quite challenging. However, it was not a crime hotspot, from January 2021 to December 2021 there were 225 crimes reported in the area, for the same period the following year this dropped to 69 for the year and the area was on course for similar figures this year. He encouraged Councillors to engage with the Safer Parks Panels.

The Committee thanked the Police and Royal Park’s Officers for attending the meeting.

RESOLVED –

THAT the report be noted.