A Safe and Secure Luton

A SAFE AND SECURE LUTON

In 2012, Luton is to be a town where there is a low risk of crime, people feel safe to lead their lives, and residents have a lower fear of crime than residents of three quarters of similar urban areas in England.

Priorities for Action

Priority 1 – Environment and quality of life

1.1Ensure there is less violence against the person

QoL 16Crimes committed:

BVPI* domestic burglaries (per 1,000 households)

* violent offences (per 1,000 population)

* vehicle crimes (per 1,000 population)

ComP 8Reduced overall levels of violent crime (including violence against

person, sexual offences, and robbery)

Table 2.1 Incidence of Violent Crime

Source: Bedfordshire Police 2004 and 2005

In 2004/05, 25% of all violent crime occurred within South ward.

Table 2.2 Revised violent Crime 03/04

Source: Bedfordshire Police 2004

The town centre accounts for 74% of violent crime in South ward, most likely a result of the concentration of pubs and clubs in the area.

1

Table 2.3 Violent crime – CDRP Family Group

CDRP Name

CDRP Average

Source: Home Office, CDRP Tables 2005

Violence against the person: Luton 15% increase in offences in 2004/05 compared to previous year; ranked 10th lowest incidence rate.

Sexual offences: Luton 15% increase in 2004/05 compared to previous year (dealing with small numbers, actual increase of 37 offences); ranked 3rd highest incidence rate.

Robbery offences: Luton 11% increase in offences in 2004/05 compared to previous year; ranked 9th lowest incidence rate.

Table 2.4 All Recorded Crime (4 year period)

Source: Bedfordshire Police 2005

Over the 4 year period South, Wigmore, & High Town significantly above Luton average. South ward due to location of town centre.

Table 2.5 Revised All Crime

Year

Source: Bedfordshire Police 2004

Table 2.6 Percentage Change in Overall Crime Levels

Source: Bedfordshire Police

11.4% decrease in overall crime levels in Luton between 2003/04 and 2004/5, with significant decreases in Wigmore and Limbury wards. Dallow and Saints were the only wards to record increases in overall crime during this period.

1.2Fear of crime on the street

1.3Ensure parks and play areas are safe

1.4Increase Visibility of Police Presence

1.5Faster removal of abandoned vehicles

BVnumber of abandoned vehicles.

ComP21Reduce levels of abandoned and unlicensed vehicles and ‘fly-

tipping’ on streets

Table 2.7 Number of abandoned vehicles within Luton Borough area 2003/04 and 2004/05

Source: Street Services, Luton Borough Council

Of total number of abandoned vehicles reported 52% were scrapped in 2004/05 (47% in 2003/04).

Figure 2.3 Abandoned vehicles in Luton, 2004/05, numbers

Fly-tipping on streets[1]: The average time taken to remove fly-tips (in days) (Local ER28):

2002/03 2.32 days

2003/04 1.53 days

2004/05 2.54 days

1.6Arson Reduction

BVnumber of arson incidents recorded.

ComP19Reduce the number of deliberate fires

Table 2.8 Number of deliberate fires (over 4 year period) by type of fire

Source: Bedfordshire Fire Service

Table 2.9 Total number of deliberate fires (over 4 year period) by type of fire

Source: Bedfordshire Fire Service 2004

Figure 2.4 Number of deliberate fires (over 4 year period) by type of fire

Figure 2.5 Total number of deliberate fires (over 4 year period) by type of fire

Table 2.10 Breakdown of all deliberate fires by ward 2003/04 and 2004/05 – incidence rate per 1000 residents

Source: Bedfordshire Fire Service

Wards significantly above the Luton average are: Northwell (more than twice Luton average), Sundon Park, and Farley.

Table 2.11 Breakdown of vehicle fires by ward 2003/04 and 2004/05 – Incidence rate per 1,000 residents

Source: Bedfordshire Fire Service

Wards significantly above the Luton average: Northwell, Sundon Park and Lewsey.

Priority 2 – Youth Safety and Youth Justice

2.1Activities for young people

2.2Reduce School Truancy

2.3Use measures available to deter re-offending and nuisance behaviour

2.4Provide advise/support to young people to prevent them becoming involved in crime or being the victims of crime

ComP12Reduce numbers of young people committing offences

BVYoung offenders.

Extract from ‘Luton Youth Offending Team: Youth Justice Plan 2002 – 2005’:

The YOT monitor young people aged 10 to 17 years old. During 2001, 910 young people were responsible for 1,402 offences (ratio 1.5 offences per young offender), compared with 788 young people during 2000 who were responsible for 1215 offences (ratio 1.5 offences per young offender).

The peak age of male juvenile offending remains at 17 years with 39% of offences committed by this age group compared with 37% during 2000. The peak age for female offenders however appears to have dropped to 13 years from 15 years with 21% of offences committed by this age group. The overall percentage of offences committed by females has increased to 20% of the juvenile total, from 15% the previous year. There is no way of monitoring unique offenders.

Priority 3 – Alcohol and drug misuse

3.1Drug and alcohol-related crime

3.2Reduce access to drugs

3.3Reduce abuse of alcohol on licensed premises

3.4Increase outreach advise service to young people

Priority 4 – Violence and Harassment

4.1Robbery / Mugging

4.2Domestic Violence

4.3Hate Crime

4.4Home Burglary

NR14Reduce Robbery by 14% from 1999/00 to 2005.

ComP 9Reduce levels of robberies.

Table 2.12 Robbery offences (rate per 1,000 population), 1999/00 to 2004/05

Source: Home Office; PSA Floor Targets – Local Authority Profiles, Luton January 2006

Luton’s rate of robbery offences per 1,000 population shows a significant upward trend between 1999/00 and 2004/05, from 2.2 to 3.5. This contrasts with the average for all 88 NRF areas, which has been declining since 2001/02 and currently stands below Luton’s figure, at 3.1 offences per 1,000 population. The same trend is true of the England average, which is significantly below the rate for Luton, and for the 88 NRF areas, at 1.8 per 1,000 population.

Figure 2.8 Robbery offences (rate per 1,000 population), 1999/00 to 2004/05

BV174[4]The number of racial incidents recorded by the authority per

100,000 population.

2002/03 75.39 incidents per 100,000 residents.

2003/04 181.52 incidents per 100,000 residents.

2004/05 202.48 incidents per 100,000 residents.

The increase in the number of incidents in 2003/04 compared to

2002/03 is partly explained by the inclusion of schools in the 2003/04

figures. It is also partly attributed to the increased promotion of reporting and reporting points, for example, Hate Crime Policy.

Table 2.13 Domestic violence – number of incidents reported

Source: Bedfordshire Police 2004

* year runs January to December.

+ repeat incidents are defined as those which involve the same victim andoccur within the same month

QoL 16Crimes committed:

BVPI* domestic burglaries (per 1,000 households)

* violent offences (per 1,000 population)

* vehicle crimes (per 1,000 population)

BV126Domestic burglaries per 1,000 households.

ComP10Reduce levels of domestic burglaries.

NR13Reduce domestic burglary by 25% from 1998/99 to 2005.

Table 2.14 Domestic burglaries per 1000 households, 2003/04 and 2004/05

Source: Bedfordshire Police

The incidence of domestic burglaries in the South ward in 2004/05 is 1.6 times greater than the Luton average.

Table 2.15 Domestic burglary – CDRP Family Group

CDRP Name

CDRP Average

Source: Home Office, CDRP Tables 2005

45% increase (increase of 860 offences on the previous year 2002/03) & 2nd highest incidence rate within Audit group.

Table 2.16 Domestic burglaries (rate per 1,000 households), 1999/00 to 2004/05

Source: Home Office; PSA Floor Targets – Local Authority Profiles, Luton January 2006

Luton has a higher incidence of domestic burglaries per 1,000 households, at 25.7, a figure five points above the average for all 88 NRf areas, and eleven points above that for England. However, it is a marked reduction on the 36.6 incidents per 1,000 households recorded in 2003/04.

Figure 2.10 Domestic Burglary (rate per 1,000 households), 1999/00 to 2004/05

BV128Vehicle crimes per 1,000 population.

ComP11Reduce levels of vehicle related crime (includes theft of motor

vehicle and theft from motor vehicle)

NR12Reduce vehicle crime by 30% from 1998/99 to 2004.

Table 2.17 Incidence Vehicle related crime per 1,000 residents, 2003/04 and 2004/05

Source: Bedfordshire Police

Wards significantly above the Luton average: South & High Town. The risk of vehicle related crime is 1.4 times higher than nationally.

17% of all vehicle related crime occurs within the South ward.

Table 2.18 Revised vehicle related crime – South ward excluding the town centre

The town centre accounts for 50% of all vehicle related crime in South ward.

Table 2.19 Vehicle Crime – CDRP Family Group

CDRP Name

CDRP Average

Source: Home Office, CDRP Tables 2005

Table 2.20 Vehicle related crime (rate per 1,000 population), 1999/00 to 2004/05

Source: Home Office;PSA Floor Targets – Local Authority Profiles, Luton, January 2006

The number of vehicle crimes per 1,000 population has fallen in all three areas noted over the 199/00 to 2004/05 period, with Luton having recorded the most significant drop, from 36.4 offences per 1,000 population in 1999/00 to 19.6 in 2005/06. However, this rate remains above the averages for both England, and the 88 NRF areas.

Figure 2.12 Vehicle related crime (rate per 1,000 population), 1999/00 to 2004/05

Community Cohesion – Cross Cutting Theme

The points below describe how community cohesion issues are being addressed by the Crime Theme Group:

• Strong links between LBC / Bedfordshire Police to ensure crime prevention news gets through
• Stakeholder representation on CDRP
• CNN being introduced to create a more cohesive community
• Representation of the Police on Statutory Agencies, Police Authority
• Crime & Disorder Strategy document on website
• Encourage multi-agency solutions to racist incidents & Hate Crimes and better support for victims
• Ensure that all community groups are consulted on the Crime & Disorder reduction strategies
• Work with community groups to strengthen the sense of belonging and cohesion
• Ensure that no one is to be seriously disadvantaged by where they live

Improved resourcing and performance of multi-agency partnership working in respect of crime and disorder reduction.

Key partners: Luton Borough Council, Police, Fire Service, Safer Luton Partnership, NACRO, Luton Multi-Agency Domestic Violence Forum, Schools.

[1] Best Value Performance Review 2004/05

[2] Number of cases in which ethnicity was not recorded for each of the four years was, respectively: 91, 84, 1, and 3.

[3] One case where gender was not recorded

[4] Best Value Performance Plan 2004/05, Luton Borough Council

[5] The 2003/04 figure is used as a base rather than the 2002/03 figure, because from 2003/04 schools were included in this measure.