MORE than 130 angry protesters packed a meeting on Tuesday and demanded a face-to-face meeting with HampshireÕs chief constable to answer for the controversial decision to cut police numbers in Petersfield and merge its police force with Whitehill.
Banner-waving campaigners staged a protest before the meeting at Penns Place. They then crowded into the East Hampshire District Council chamber to hear Superintendent Bob Rose of Central Hampshire police say the moves were Ònon-negotiableÓ. He added that he had taken the decision because Petersfield police were Òover-resourcedÓ.
He denied any plans to close Petersfield police station, and instead announced there was a £50,000 plan for refurbishments there.
The cuts were a direct result of the Resource Allocation Formula, which showed that Central Hampshire had the lowest number of crimes and prisoner arrests per officer, said Supt Rose.
ÒThe decision was made that I was to lose 12 officers,Ó he said.
He added: ÒAs unwelcome as it was, this was passed to me, and it was non-negotiable.Ó
But protesters told Supt Rose they were not interested in police statistics or formulae.
Elderly Petersfield resident Peter Cooper echoed the meetingÕs feelings when he told Supt Rose: ÒWe are interested in feeling safe and seeing police officers when we need them.Ó
Town and district councillor Brian Dutton sent out a blunt message.
ÒThis decision has been crassly and ineptly instituted, led, we are told by the chief constable,Ó he said.
There was applause when another member of the public told Supt Rose: ÒWhat we want is the chief constable (Paul Kernaghan) here to answer to us. He is not a dictator, he may think he can impose his decisions on us but he has someone above him. We want a firm undertaking that he will come here and see the people of Petersfield - we want him in front of us to answer to us.Ó
Supt Rose told the meeting he had been left to work out where the 12 officers would be cut in Central Hampshire, so he applied the Resource Allocation Formula to his five sectors at Petersfield, Whitehill and Bordon, Alton, Itchen Valley and Winchester City, and decided on cuts which included three officers from Petersfield, Alton and Whitehill and Bordon.
He said his decision to then merge Petersfield and Whitehill/Bordon into the Longmoor sector meant patrol officers had better leadership, better management and greater flexibility.
The merger means that from February 2 all response officers for Whitehill and Petersfield will begin and end their duties at Whitehill, where they will be briefed. Some officers will then patrol the south of the area and others will concentrate on the north.
In charge of the new Longmoor sector will be Inspector Gerry Thorne, based at Whitehill. Petersfield has already lost its inspector, Steve Sargent, who has been moved to Alresford, but Supt Rose promised that Petersfield police station would continue to be manned.
He stressed that there would still be six community beat officers patrolling Petersfield and its surrounding rural areas.
ÒIn the last three months there have been an average of 10 emergency calls per day in both areas that require immediate police response,Ó said Supt Rose.
ÒIn any 24 hours there are going to be three sergeants and 21 officers to deal with these calls. There are going to be up to 35 response officers for these two areas. I believe these officers under the command of Insp Thorne will be able to deal with this number of calls.Ó
County councillor Michael Cartwright, who is also chairman of the Hampshire Fire and Rescue Authority, said he was astounded that the Hampshire Police Authority did not have similar powers to his own group to investigate controversial proposals.
ÒI find myself astonished that the police authority has no say in this matter,Ó he said.
What is the point of having a police authority if members have no democratic mandate to review these decisions?Ó
Town and district councillor Bob Ayer said the ÔwretchedÕ formula should be Òrevised instantly or preferably removed from the planetÓ.
District councillor Andrew Pattie said he was concerned that police numbers should be able to be reinstated quickly if crime levels rose in Petersfield.
ÒWe are about to become part of a national park, and following the ice cream vans come the villains, fast and furious,Ó he claimed.
Councillor Guy Stacpoole added: ÒI would like to point out that other police areas doing worse than yourself doesnÕt mean you are doing well and Petersfield is safe. Things are getting worse in the town, and your response is to take officers away in significant numbers.Ó
The meeting was reminded that a new estate of more than 250 houses was now being built on Ramshill.
Resident Dave Allen said: ÒThis will be detrimental to the crime figures, and Petersfield police are already short-staffed.Ó
A representative from Froxfield and Privett Parish Council said villagers were very worried about the cutbacks as community beat officers would now have their areas extended:
ÒThe priority for everyone is prevention of crime, and a police presence helps that. We would value keeping the present situation and are certainly against any extension of the area covered by community beat officers.Ó
Supt Rose told the meeting: ÒI asked the inspectors to look at the beat officers and their areas to ensure that an officer was allocated to every inch of the area. What it has meant is that some officers have larger beats and some have smaller ones.Ó
Will Godfrey, Chief Executive of East Hampshire District Council, told members of the public he would write to the chief constable asking for a meeting to clarify the Resource Allocation Formula and give a greater understanding of how the merger would work.
Petersfield town councillors have already booked the Festival Hall on January 20, when they are hoping to hold a public meeting. Members of the public want Hampshire Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan to meet them face-to-face there.
Meanwhile Supt Rose is scheduled to talk to members of the public in the Bordon area at another EHDC community area committee meeting, also on January 20.