Agenda and minutes

Please note that this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method. Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting. Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on. 

By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda item 1 regarding filming at the

meeting and Members noted the information contained therein.

Apologies were received from Kanupriya Jhunjhunwala.

There were no items of Urgent Business.

In relation to Item 11, Lourdes declared that her son and his partner were leaseholders in Noel Park.

The Chair advised that she was a ward Councillor in Noel Park.

Cllr Moyeed declared that he was also a ward Councillor in Noel Park.

None.

To agree the minutes of the meetings on 12^th January and 18^th January 2021.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meetings on 12^th January 2021 and 18^th January 2021 were agreed as a correct record.

*Clerk’s note – Cllr Blake was running late, so the Chair agreed to alter the order of the agenda. The minutes reflect the order in which items were discussed during the meeting, rather than the order of items on the published agenda.*

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee previously approved recommendations on Fire Safety in High Rise blocks at its meeting on 25 March 2019. Cabinet provided a response to those recommendations at its meeting on 9 July 2019. The Committee considered a further update on Fire Safety in High Rise Blocks at this meeting. The covering report and presentation were introduced by Bob McIver, Head of Building Control as set out in the agenda pack at pages 27 – 46. The following arose from the discussion of this item:

a.    In response to a question about the Council’s interactions with housing associations around fire safety, officers advised that the Council had very little interactions with housing associations and housing association properties as they had been pushed to deal with MCHLG on their own terms. It was noted that there was significant funding available from the government for the removal of ACM cladding and that housing associations were liaising with the government as a result. However, officers advised that to date the MHCLG were not allowing the Council to see the data in relation to housing association properties. The Head of Building Control was continuing to push back on this in order to have a complete picture of all buildings in the borough.

b.    Officers were asked to comment on the level of influence that the Council had with private buildings and housing associations to access fire safety reports. In response, officers advised that the information pertaining to private buildings was captured as part of the data capture exercise but housing association returns were provided to the MHCLG directly. Bob McIver agreed to speak to the AD Housing and ask him to include this on the agenda for the next meeting between housing officers and social housing providers. (Action: Bob McIver).

c.    The Committee requested that it receive further information in relation to the pilot that was being set up and due to report back in 3-6 months. Officers agreed to request that a report come back to either the Committee or the Housing Panel on the outcome of the pilot scheme. (Action: Bob McIver).

d.    The Committee reiterated a request that had been made previously around Councillors receiving detailed fire safety risk assessments on HfH estates. Officers agreed to feed this back to HfH for a comment and it was also suggested that this could be picked up at a future meeting of the building safety group. (Action: Bob McIver).

e.    In relation to a question about existing buildings in Tottenham Hale with cladding, officers advised that they had received all of the returns around this as well as other issues and the cladding in question was not ACM cladding, so not the same material as at Grenfell. As far  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Verbal update.

The Cabinet Member for Communities gave a short verbal update on his portfolio, which was followed by a question and answer session. The key points raised by the Cabinet Member were noted as:

·         There had been four murders in the borough in 2021, which was a worrying development. Particular concerns were raised about serious youth violence and the seeming willingness of young people to carry knives. The Cabinet Member advised that he was working with officers and the Leader on how to communicate the anti-knife agenda, with a meeting arranged for 24^th. The Council’s Youth at Risk Strategy identified a number of high risk groups in the area, such as those excluded from mainstream education.

·         The Cabinet Member advised that he was in the process or organising an all Member briefing on serious youth violence and it was anticipated that this would take place in May.

·         Cllr Blake noted that he had thanked the Borough Commander for the sensitive way in which the vigils for Sarah Everard had been policed over the weekend and also expressed frustration with how the vigil was policed at Clapham.

·         Progress had been made on the development of a youth centre in Wood Green, something that had been missing for at least 10 years. Officers had been asked to set up a stakeholder site visit in May. Officers were continuing to work with partners on the offer for young people and it was envisaged that the youth space would be opened before the end of the year.

·         The Youth Justice service was due to undergo a thematic inspection by HMICFRS in May which would be looking at ethnic disproportionality in the youth justice system. The inspection would be carried out alongside Hackney and Lambeth.

The following arose as part the discussion on this agenda item:

a.    The Committee sought assurances around the extent to which services were being co-produced with young people and other key stakeholders. The Cabinet Member advised that there was a young person’s advisory group around the Wood Green Hub and that he would feed back more details to the Committee via email. (Action: Cllr Mark Blake).

b.    The Chair also highlighted a recent a discussion with young people, where some of them had expressed mistrust with the use of rangers on Wood Green High Road and that this reflected a wider mistrust of the police from some of Haringey’s communities and particularly from young people.  The Cabinet Member agreed that he would take this point away for further reflection and acknowledged that similar mistrust of the rangers had been raised by some homeless people.

c.    The Committee raised concerns about an emphasis on policing numbers to tackle crime and queried the extent to which the Council was looking at prevent programmes based around engagement with perpetrators. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that there was some work being funded with perpetrators but that it was rather limited in its scope. The Cabinet member suggested that recent events highlighted the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

The Committee received a report for noting which provided an update on the immediate impacts of Brexit on Haringey as well as an outline for how the long-term risks and impacts of Brexit would be managed moving forward. The report was introduced by Jean Taylor, Head of Policy as set out in the agenda pack at pages 47-52. The following arose in response to the discussion of the report:

a.    In relation to procurement implications, the Committee questioned the possible loss of checks and balances, particularly as the UK was no longer aligned OEUJ procurement regulations and whether there was still an obligation to publish with finder tendering services. The Committee also sought assurances around whether, as the Green Paper was still a long time from being published, officers were satisfied with current arrangements around checks and balances. In response, officers agreed to provide a written response to these points. (Action: Jean Taylor).

b.    The Committee also questioned whether, in light of market softening, the Council was purchasing properties at above market rates. It was commented that the Council could be seen as an easy way for developers to get rid of properties at the top end of market values.  Officers responded that purchasing of properties was consistent with exiting strategies and assessment of need. Officers agreed to provide further information via email. (Action: Jean Taylor).

c.    The Committee also sought clarification as to whether there were any figures available for the number of EU citizens who had returned to their country of origin. The Committee also enquired about the number of residents who had received/applied for settled status and a comment on whether there were still problems with this process. Officers advised that there was anecdotal feedback on people returning to their country of origin, particularly in light of the economic impacts of Covid and that this applied to both those eligible for settled status as well as those who weren’t. It was suggested that this trend also pre-dated the pandemic.

d.    Officers commented that there was no readily available data source that allowed the authority to get a live picture of the data. It was envisaged that the census would provide a lot of information in this regard and the Council had also amended its equalities monitoring policy to capture nationality properly for the first time.

e.    Officers also advised the Committee that securing settled status or pre-settled status was a priority for the authority and that officer resources were in place to support this. The deadline for applications was approaching in the summer and a further update could be provided on this at  a future meeting.

f.     The Committee sought assurances around the impact of staffing in the care sector, which had previously been highlighted as an area of concern. In response, officers advised that the authority was monitoring the impact on the workforce and that social care workers were a particular area of concern. From the latest round of returns, officers had not been made aware  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The Committee received a refresh to the Protocol for Overview and Scrutiny. The Committee was requested to approve the new document for recommendation to Council. The covering report and attached draft protocol were introduced by Rob Mack, Principal Scrutiny Officer as set out in the agenda pack at pages 53-66. The following arose in response to the discussion of the refreshed protocol:

a.    The Committee commented that Paragraph 6.2 should reflect that the scrutiny process should be ‘led by’ rather than ‘coordinated by’ the Chair of Budget Scrutiny. (Action: Rob Mack).

b.    The Committee also queried the need for greater clarity on the role of co-optees and whether the protocol should set out in more detail their role, how they are selected and in general provide greater transparency around the whole process. The Chair agreed to note this point and take it forward as part of a wider future discussion one engaging with the community and/or the Terms of Reference for OSC. (Action: Rob Mack).

c.    The Committee raised concerns about the stipulation that access to information was on a need to know basis and whether this could be used to limit the capacity of scrutiny members to access relevant information. In response, the Legal Advisor to the Committee advised that this provision should be read in conjunction with what was set out in the constitution. Demonstrating a ‘need to know’ was a fairly well established practice and terminology. It was commented that the fact that a Chair of a particular panel was asking for the information in relation to a relevant piece of scrutiny work was more than sufficient to meet this criterion. Officers also set out that Section 10 of the protocol set out additional information in relation to access to information. Officers agreed to make this clearer in the protocol (Action: Stephen Lawrence Orumwense).

d.    The Committee also raised the issue about access to more junior officers and requested that this be clarified in the protocol. In response, officers advised that this was set out in the constitution and that any change to this provision would have to be amended in the constitution through the usual process, rather than through the protocol.

e.    The Committee also requested clarification about the role of the Statutory Scrutiny Officer. In response, officers clarified that the relevant point in the protocol was around having a right to appeal a decision to that person (in conjunction with the Monitoring Officer), such as not being given access to a particular officer. The Committee was advised that the Statutory Scrutiny Officer was Richard Grice.

f.     The Chair sought assurances that Cabinet would also be engaged around the content of the protocol and asked to sign up to it. In response, officers confirmed that this would also be considered by Cabinet and that they will be asked to sign up to it as joint protocol.

RESOLVED

1. That the draft updated Overview and Scrutiny Protocol was endorsed by the

Committee and recommended to Council for final  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

To Follow

The Committee considered a Scrutiny Review carried out by the Housing and Regeneration Panel on proposed Noel Park Major Works. The report was introduced by Cllr Gordon - Chair of the Scrutiny Panel, as set out in the supplementary agenda pack at page 7. The following was raised in discussion of the report:

1. The Committee commended the thoroughness of the report and the amount of work that had gone into it. The Committee thanked officers for their support in compiling it.
2. The Committee raised concerns around the administration missing the 30 day deadline for the truncated process of the Section 20 notices and sought assurances around this and the potential for future legal action. In particular, it was noted that these notices would remove the rights of residents to appoint their own contractors. Cllr Gordon responded that the Panel were particularly concerned about this point and were also wary about having a truncated consultation period in the first place. It was commented that this was not how the Council should be engaging with residents. In regard to the possibility of further legal challenge, the legal advisor to the Committee suggested that he would have to come back to Committee with a comment on this as he was not involved with the issue. It was suggested that the leaseholders would have their own legal representation and it would be up to them to take any claims forward. (Action: Stephen Lawrence-Orumwense).
3. The Committee also raised concerns about a general lack of consultation and engagement with leaseholders throughout the process. In response, Cllr Gordon suggested that she thought that there was a lack of engagement and was concerned that it was only in response to the campaign by leaseholders and subsequent press coverage that had jolted the administration into action and had elicited further engagement.
4. The Committee queried the role and efficacy of the first tier tribunal for resolving disputes. Cllr Gordon commented that the first tier tribunals seemed to be quite a bureaucratic process and that in her opinion, the Council didn’t need to have a third party tribunal;  it just needed to listen to residents and engage properly.

*Clerk’s note 21:50 hrs – Under Committee Standing Order 63, the Committee agreed to suspend Committee Standing Order 18, thereby extending the meeting past the 22:00 cut-off point.*

5. The Committee raised concerns about the high cost of the estimates for leaseholders and suggested that the reason for this was because repairs had been left for long and the decision to do the work had been delayed by different administrations. It was commented that it seemed fundamentally unfair to charge the leaseholders so much for a problem that was not of their making.  It was commented that the Housing Panel should continue to pursue this point.
6. The Committee also noted concerns with delays in responding to questions and FOI request from leaseholders throughout this process. In response, Cllr Gordon advised that the panel also shared these concerns and advised that it was the role  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The Committee requested that further updates be brought back to the Committee in due course on both fire safety and Brexit. (Rob Mack).

RESOLVED

1. That the work programmes that the main Committee and Scrutiny Panels have followed in 2020/21 were noted along with any outstanding items.

2. That process for developing the work plan for 2021/22 was approved; and

3. That responsibility for the final approval of the Committee’s response consultation by Whittington Health on changes to its estates and services in Haringey was delegated to the to the Head of Legal and Governance in consultation with the Chair.

N/A

This was the last meeting of the 2020-21 municipal year.