Presentation by Inspector Michael Head regarding Lincolnshire Police.
Minutes:
The Chairman introduced the item and welcomed Inspector Head from Lincolnshire Police.
Inspector Head presented to the Committee a range of matters relating to neighbourhood policing and operational developments within West Lindsey.
It was noted that Inspector Head had entered his third year in post, having succeeded Inspector Gary Brockie in October 2022. During this period, significant changes had been implemented within the neighbourhood policing model, with further adjustments anticipated due to the financial position of the force.
The Committee was informed that a report issued by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services had identified five key areas of concern. These included the need for the force to attend calls for service in accordance with published target attendance times, to improve the allocation, supervision and investigation of crime in order to ensure that victims received appropriate support, and to ensure that sufficient capacity and capability existed to manage the risks posed by Registered Sex Offenders. Additionally, it had been noted that there was a need to enhance the understanding of demand across the force and to establish adequate strategic planning processes.
The Committee was advised that an evidence-based approach to policing had been adopted to ensure optimal allocation of resources. It was reported that the number of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) had been reduced. Although seven PCSOs had been promised for West Lindsey, only four had been received, all of whom had been based in Gainsborough. PCSOs had been allocated to areas identified as experiencing high levels of harm. Collaborative work with partner agencies had been undertaken to address anti-social behaviour, with a focus on problem-solving initiatives.
West Lindsey had been divided into nine separate Beat Codes. Previously, each Beat Code had operated with its own neighbourhood policing team and set of priorities. In order to improve coverage, a transition to a ‘Superbeats’ model had been initiated. The West Lindsey Response Team had continued to provide coverage across the area.
Under the new model, West Lindsey had been effectively split into two areas, each served by a Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT). This arrangement had been designed to improve coverage during periods of staff absence due to leave or sickness, and to increase the number of public contact points. It was reported that the NPT had operated with only one Sergeant for approximately 18 months due to long-term sickness. Sergeant Mark Pearson had joined the team at the end of September, thereby strengthening the supervisory structure.
Details were provided regarding the composition of Team One and Team Two, including the breakdown of officers assigned to each.
A breakdown of crime statistics was presented, showing comparative data from September 2025 and September 2024, as well as rolling 12-month periods from October 2024 to September 2025 and October 2023 to September 2024. Volume and percentage changes had been reported for each area, designated NC01 through NC09. The Committee was informed that four response teams were in operation and working from Gainsborough and Market Rasen. Each team comprised one Sergeant and ten Police Constables. These teams were responsible for responding to both 999 and 101 calls.
Two officers had been temporarily assigned to the NPT from August 2025 to form a High Harm Team. Their focus was on high-harm offenders within Gainsborough. Early results had been described as excellent, with several Criminal Behaviour Orders having been applied for. Information was provided regarding Criminal Behaviour Orders, including the conditions imposed on individuals, the potential for custodial sentences in cases of breach, and the typical duration of such orders, which could extend up to two years.
The Committee was advised that partnership working continued to be a key element of the neighbourhood policing strategy. The Housing and Environmental Enforcement Manager at West Lindsey District Council also provided an update on partnership working arrangements. It was reported that operational collaboration remained strong between the Neighbourhood Policing Team, Community Safety, and the Council. A shared county-wide information system was in use to manage and monitor anti-social behaviour, which had enabled effective information sharing across agencies.
Monthly tactical meetings had continued to take place, with representation from relevant departments. West Lindsey District Council’s Enterprising Communities Manager was responsible for overseeing all CCTV operations, while the Housing and Environmental Enforcement Manager’s team managed operational matters. The scope of these meetings had been extended to include housing associations such as ACIS, P3, and others. It was noted that the frequency of meetings could be increased if required.
Joint working also took place with Licensing, Trading Standards, and enforcement teams, including the execution of warrants on shop premises. Officers had been able to engage directly with the community while exercising their powers.
In relation to youth anti-social behaviour, West Lindsey District Council had taken the lead on initial contact. A three-stage process was in place, and at the second stage, individuals were met by representatives from both The Housing and Environmental Enforcement Manager’s team and the Neighbourhood Policing Team, accompanied by their parents. Engagement with local schools was being maintained to assist in identifying individuals involved in incidents where identities could not be confirmed by other means. Hotspot patrolling was carried out, which had increased the visibility of policing teams and PCSOs. It was emphasised that such activity had only been possible due to additional funding. Furthermore, two West Lindsey officers had been working additional hours twice per week to support these efforts.
Inspector Head then responded to a number of questions submitted in advance of the meeting by Members.
In response to a question regarding potential cost-saving measures within the force that would not compromise service delivery, it was stated that the force continually sought to operate more efficiently and innovatively. Reference was made to the causes of concern identified by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, which included the need to attend calls for service in line with published target attendance times, improve the allocation, supervision and investigation of crimes to ensure victims received appropriate support, ensure sufficient capacity and capability to manage risks posed by Registered Sex Offenders, enhance the understanding of demand, and ensure that adequate strategic plans were in place. The matter of budget management training and accountability had also been raised, and it was confirmed that officers were expected to manage resources responsibly and would be prepared to justify expenditure if required.
A further question had been raised concerning the reassurance of minority groups in light of perceived societal shifts. In response, it was confirmed that the police would continue to operate without fear or favour, maintaining impartiality and fairness in all aspects of policing.
A question had been submitted regarding West Lindsey’s position in relation to crime levels, particularly in light of survey data indicating strong public support for increased police funding. It was reported that a number of initiatives had been introduced to address local crime concerns. These included the work of the Community Links Team, which aimed to divert individuals at risk of criminality away from offending behaviour, the establishment of a High Harm Team, the creative use of anti-social behaviour powers, and the development of a Community and Alcohol Partnership. Strong joint working with West Lindsey District Council was also highlighted, alongside targeted operations such as Operation Climb.
Concerns were raised regarding the length of time taken for serious cases to be heard at Crown Court, with reference made to national and local averages. It was acknowledged that court backlogs were a national issue and that the timeframes associated with the Courts and the Crown Prosecution Service were outside the control of the police. Nonetheless, it was recognised that such delays could impact service delivery and public confidence.
Finally, a question had been asked about the impact of recent changes to offender recall procedures and early release schemes, particularly in relation to repeat offenders. It was reported that no analytical data was available to support an increase in crime linked to these measures. Evidence-based policing had indicated that a small number of individuals, referred to as the ‘power few’, were responsible for a significant proportion of crime. It was noted that there were currently limited schemes within West Lindsey aimed at reducing reoffending.
Inspector Head concluded his presentation by expressing appreciation for the strong and effective working relationship with West Lindsey District Council. Particular thanks were extended to the Housing and Environmental Enforcement Manager and his teams for their continued support and collaborative efforts.
The Chairman thanked Inspector head for his presentation and invited Members of the Committee to comment.
A Member expressed appreciation on behalf of Waddingham Parish Council, West Lindsey District Council, and Lincolnshire County Council for the police response to an incident which had occurred in Waddingham. The positive engagement was acknowledged and thanks were extended to the officers involved.
Concerns were raised regarding the need for increased focus on outlying towns and rural areas, in addition to Gainsborough. It was suggested that West Lindsey District Council would be supportive of efforts to ensure that these areas received appropriate attention. Reference was made to the northern area surrounding Market Rasen, where reports of rural crime affecting farms and isolated residents had increased. It was proposed that consideration be given to highlighting the unique demands of rural policing when seeking funding, especially in relation to travel times and resource deployment.
In response, it was confirmed that officers had been tasked with maintaining passive overnight attention in rural areas, subject to incident demand and operational tasking. One officer had made contact with an individual involved in Country Watch, although it had not been confirmed whether this support extended to the Market Rasen area.
Further comments were made regarding the prevalence of violent and alcohol-related incidents in rural wards. It was noted that violent crime statistics could encompass a range of offences, including common assault and incidents involving fear of assault. While specific figures were not available, it was explained that outcomes could vary and included cautions, youth interventions, and referrals to Youth Offending Teams. It was also observed that similar levels of assault had been recorded across different areas, which may reflect an increase in reporting rather than a rise in incidents. Gainsborough’s Trinity Academy had been identified as a location where engagement had taken place due to concerns involving students. Domestic incidents had also been reported. It was emphasised that not all cases were linked to drug or alcohol misuse, and no definitive explanation for the increase had been identified.
Commendation was offered for the work undertaken by the police with limited resources. It was acknowledged that effective community engagement and partnership working had been central to the success of local policing efforts. Officers were praised for their approachability and professionalism, and thanks were extended for their continued dedication.
A question was raised regarding the targeting of specific drug types during enforcement activity. It was confirmed that Class A drugs were prioritised due to their association with serious organised criminality and violence. While Class C drugs had also been encountered, they had not presented the same level of concern. Shop thefts were noted as an additional area of focus.
Concerns were expressed about the challenges of public communication and the perception of policing levels. It was suggested that while negative issues were often highlighted, positive developments were not always sufficiently publicised. Improvements in Market Rasen, including the use of drone technology, was mentioned as an example of successful innovation that had not received adequate recognition. It was suggested that West Lindsey District Council’s communications team could assist in promoting positive messages and outcomes.
With discussions drawing to a close, the Chairman and Committee Members thanked Inspector Head for his contributions and attendance.