Cramlington Town Council Responds to Police and Crime Commissioner

Cramlington Town Council has written an open letter to Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner, Susan Dungworth, setting out a series of concerns about policing in the town and calling for urgent and meaningful engagement.

In April, Commissioner Dungworth wrote to the Council addressing a number of concerns that had been raised with her office. The letter below is the Council’s formal response to that correspondence, and challenges a number of points raised within it – including the nature of February’s Crime and ASB Summit, the withdrawal of Project Shield funding despite its proven success in Cramlington, and the Commissioner’s continued absence from local meetings and committees.

The Council is pressing for answers on whether funding decisions affected Cramlington’s designation as a policing hotspot, and is renewing its call for a second Neighbourhood Policing Team to serve a town that is growing rapidly and already home to the largest school, shopping centre, and hospital by footfall in Northumberland.

Above all, the letter is a call for dialogue. Cramlington’s elected representatives want to work constructively with the Commissioner’s office – but that requires the Commissioner to come to the table.

The Commissioner’s letter from April can be read here

The Council’s full response is published below.

---

Open Letter To Susan Dungworth

Dear Commissioner,

Thank you for your response regarding Cramlington Town Councils concerns around antisocial behaviour in the Town. We have repeatedly requested a meeting from yourself and your department to discuss various issues and have been left disappointed by your refusal. However, we appreciate the time you have taken to address these in your letter. We must, however, query the characterisation of some of your responses stated and these are as follows.

ASB SUMMIT

Your letter mentions in February you co-hosted with MP Emma Foody a Crime and ASB Summit as an opportunity for residents to raise concerns. It is our understanding however that the event was by invitation only, and it was only through accident that the Town Council were made aware of this summit through the MP’s office asking about room hire that Cramlington Town Council could facilitate. This therefore, was NOT an open public meeting as you state, and we feel this is an important distinction to make. Whilst officers were begrudgingly allowed to attend, no councillors were wanted, and as members elected to represent the public, we found this stance astonishing. Those officers who could attend found the event nothing more than a fiasco, with no solution put forward. Many residents local to the community centre were not invited to this event nor even made aware of it? Was this a mere political move?

PROJECT SHIELD

It was noted in your response regarding project shield that it was identified that Blyth and Ashington were the highest priority locations. However, I would ask you to clarify whether the removal of Cramlington’s hotspot designation was in any way influenced by the inability of Cramlington Town Council to contribute financially to Project Shield, given that our funds were already committed elsewhere — unlike other town councils who were able to contribute. Did funding contribution play any part in that decision?

More broadly, I must question the long-term strategic planning of the safety partnership. Why were town councils with limited resources being asked by the County to fund £100,000 per year for roles that, whilst vital, should rightly be funded by the County Council or your office?

Project Shield was, by your own figures, a significant success — a 32% reduction in serious violence and 52% reduction in ASB in Cramlington. It is therefore difficult to understand why funding has ceased entirely rather than being maintained in successful areas.

Finally, I want to ensure that Cramlington’s contribution to these outcomes is properly recognised. The formation of the ASB Partnership here, which brought together key local stakeholders to collaboratively address serious cases, was instrumental in driving those results and should not be overlooked.

ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL MEETINGS

We note your explanation regarding attendance at Town and Parish Council meetings; however, we find this response inconsistent with your actions. It has been observed you campaigning in Cramlington during the Southwest ward county elections last month, making it frustrating to hear that you cannot attend meetings in the town due to time constraints.

Furthermore, we have separately requested a closed meeting with our members, to which no response has been received. We also draw your attention to the non-attendance of both yourself and your deputy at the local area committee on the 3^rd December 2025.

We respectfully ask that you reconsider your position and engage directly with Cramlington’s elected representatives.

BEDLINGTON CUSTODY SUITE AND PONTELAND COMMUNICATIONS CENTRE

You state in this section of your letter that “I would like to reassure you again that enquiries will continue to be actioned as normal. Though I support the decisions of the Chief Constable, I would like to remind you that operational policing is outside of my remit, which includes decisions concerning resource allocation. Now more than ever, it’s important that we work together to help maintain public confidence and ensure that debate remains grounded in reality rather than perception alone.”

Whilst we note your reassurance that enquiries will continue to be actioned, residents’ experience on the ground tells a different story. A significant concern remains the 101-reporting system, which many find difficult and frustrating to use. We actively encourage residents to report every incident, but without a reliable system and clear communications from the force on how to report effectively, that effort is undermined. We believe whilst the data looks positive for Cramlington, it is affected by residents not reporting incidents due to this experience and instead taking to social media or contacting local councillors out of sheer frustration.

On the question of remit — whilst we understand that operational decisions rest with the Chief Constable, as an elected commissioner you hold a mandate to scrutinise, challenge and raise concerns on behalf of the public.

We share your view that working together is vital. However, that partnership must be two-way. At present, our concerns are not being heard. We ask that you take concrete steps to address the issues raised, and that a meaningful dialogue be established as a matter of urgency.

CALLS FOR A SECOND TEAM

We wish to be clear that we fully support the work of our local Neighbourhood Policing Team, and we recognise the efforts they make. However, our concern remains that they are under-resourced for the demands placed upon them, and we would strongly advocate for the introduction of a second policing team to provide the level of support our community requires. We have fully supported our Neighbourhood police team with a £10,000 grant funding Operation Antrim, which paid for overtime work that the previous sergeant deemed necessary.

We are a large town, growing every year with new developments, which includes the largest shopping centre in Northumberland for footfall, the largest secondary school in Northumberland and the largest hospital for footfall in Northumberland.

Whilst the decision may not lie with yourself, all we require is our concerns to be passed on to the appropriate people and positive communication be established.

We look forward to your response to this letter.

Regards

Cramlington Town Council