Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised that the meeting would be webcast.

Apologies for absence were received from Yvonne Denny and Evan Reid.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 15 below).

There was no urgent business to discuss.

There were no declarations of interest.

None.

To receive the reports of:

-       Emergency Planning and Business Continuity Team – Response to Tottenham Riots

-       Haringey Emergency Planning Partnership – review of response to Tottenham Riot Multi Agency Debrief Report

-       Update on learning from the response to the Tottenham Riots

-       Brigade Response – Civil disturbances in London, August 2011

The Chair welcomed Andrew Meek (Head of Emergency Planning and Business Continuity), Spencer Alden-Smith (Borough Commander (Haringey) London Fire Brigade) and Chief Superintendent Victor Olisa (Police Borough Commander).

Andrew Meek provided some context to the discussion.  The incident in August 2011 was the most serious incident to affect the borough in 20 years.  There was pressure to deal with the aftermath of the riots, whilst also being mindful that the 2012 Olympics were fast approaching and the borough needed to be prepared for them.  The Council response and partnership working following the incident was positive.

Spencer Alden-Smith explained that he was not the Borough Commander for Haringey at the time of the riots, however he commented that the emergency services were taken unawares by the scale and widespread of the disturbances.  It was a challenging night, with 98 fire engines used, but the policies and training enabled the Fire Service to react well in these circumstances.

Chief Superintendent Olisa stated that the Met Police had acknowledged that the police service was stretched over the period of time of the disturbances.  On 8 August 2011, there was no intelligence to suggest that there would be any disturbances on the night.  However, it was fortunate that there were a number of extra Police Officers in Tottenham on 8 August due to a football game at White Hart Lane.  The incident was policed professionally and used all available resources to contain the disturbance as best as it could be.  On days 2 & 3 of the disturbances the Met was able to draft additional officers from other parts of the country to London.

Councillor Winskill praised the efforts of the Council and uniformed services in their responses to the incident.  He referred to page 7 of the report, paragraph 2.2.4 and asked how the response may have differed had the disturbances spread to Wood Green.

Andrew Meek explained that there were contingency plans in place to deal with the loss of the Wood Green hub.  There was a back up control centre, and plans in place to recover critical services, although it would be more challenging.

Councillor Winskill referred to the Panorama programme on 14 November which stated that 3000 Police Officers were mobilised on 8 August.  Councillor Winskill asked why the decision was not taken to send all of those Officers to Tottenham.  He asked Chief Superintendent Olisa for an assurance that he would find out whether this number of Police Officers were available and if so, why they were not deployed to Tottenham.

Chief Superintendent Olisa assured Councillor Winskill that he would find out the number of Police Officers who were available.  He added that it would be unlikely that the Police force would have 3000 officers on standby when there was a major incident.  There were extra officers in Tottenham on the 8 August due to the football and these were used when the disturbances began.

Councillor McNamara asked what could have been done differently on the night, and what key  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

To receive a verbal update on current and future work.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Strickland (Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Social Inclusion) and Bernadette Marjoram (Assistant Director, Major Projects).

Councillor Strickland updated the Committee on various aspects of his portfolio.

NOTED

Planning Service

·          A programme of improvement had begun with the Director of Place and Sustainability to secure the changes that members want to see.

·          Following the implementation of the plan and staff changes, performance on major applications improved significantly.  Performance so far was up 56% for applications going through in 13 weeks against the Government target of 60%.

·          There was a new process for dealing with major applications – special team of officers.

·          Design seminars for planning staff were taking place – Members expect the quality of design to go up in borough.

·          Councillor Strickland was chairing a cross-party group who were going through current policies.

·          There would be a Scrutiny project to look at planning services and how they engage with communities and members.

Culture

·          Councillor Strickland was keen to develop a proper plan for borough and was about to start a cross-party group supported by specialist advisor to look at this. 

Regeneration across the Borough

·          The CrossRail 2 development was a significant opportunity for regeneration.  A number of different routes had been discussed.

·          Councillor Strickland was working with a consortium to lobby for the Route ‘B’.

·          It was important that there was a clear and coherent regeneration policy for the whole borough.

Tottenham Regeneration

·          Bernadette Marjoram had been appointed to the Council in January 2013.  Her work involved updating the Tottenham Plan to integrate the socio-economic aspects.  It was important to remember that while the long term plans were being worked through, there would still be local residents living in the area who would be affected by the regeneration.

·          Planning permission had been granted for Wards Corner.

·          Tottenham Hale - £20m of TFL money had been provided for Tottenham Hale station.

·          Good progress had been made in Tottenham so far – Tottenham gyratory work had started, Wards Corner planning permission had been granted, a full time Tottenham High Road manager had been employed and £50k had been allocated for West Green Road.

·          The Delivery Plan was in the process of being radically reviewed in order to bring the socio-economic elements into the programme.  The new version would be presented to OSC when it has been drafted to open the debate with OSC members.

·          A new Comms officer had been appointed to the Regeneration team and a strategic communications plan was being worked on.

·          A programme for each area was being worked on within the overall plan – this aimed to give greater accountability to what was happening with services within an area e.g. enforcement and waste management.

·          Regular meetings take place with partners including the police and HAVCO.

Councillor Newton referred to the plans for 40-50 Council properties in Woodside Avenue, Muswell Hill – an area with an acute shortage of school places – and asked whether the number of school places (or lack thereof) was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195.

To hear from North London Waste Authority representatives on accountability and governance.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Meehan, David Beadle – Managing Director, NLWA – and Tom Hemming – Waste Strategy Manager.

The Chair asked Councillor Meehan to explain some of the background of the NLWA – what is was, who it was responsible to and how it was scrutinised.

Councillor Meehan explained that the NLWA was a public authority which had been set up in its’ own right following the implementation of The Waste Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985.  Under this Act, each Local Authority appointed two elected Members to sit on the Board.  When sitting on the NLWA Board, members were a representative of the NLWA and not the Local Authority.  The Board as a whole makes the decisions.  These decisions were made in public (apart from sensitive decisions, i.e. procurement), but there was no scrutiny function.

David Beadle added that at the time of setting up the NLWA, 5 other statutory joint waste authorities were also set up.  There were links with officers at each borough and a partnership board with technical officers to work through the procurement side of things.  Although the decisions were made by the NLWA, a lot of these decisions were presented to Local Authorities, and Members would have the opportunity to discuss and scrutinise these.

Councillor McNamara commented that thought needed to go into how OSC could constructively contribute.  He made reference to a piece of work undertaken by the Environment & Housing Scrutiny Panel on waste and recycling where panel members had spoken with Bexley – a unitary waste disposal authority where Councillors had a role in scrutinising the waste function.  He stated that it was important to speak to other waste authorities to get a sense of how they carried out a scrutiny role.

Councillor McNamara also referred to the The Waste Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985 and questioned whether this had been superseded by the Local Government Act 2000 which set out the scrutiny arrangements for public organisations.  He added that this did not mean that the NLWA did not work, or that they way it worked was wrong but that there needed to be some exploration into the scrutiny function of the organisation.

In response to Councillor McNamara, Councillor Meehan stated that it would be simplistic to say that Haringey were not aware of issues or decisions of NLWA.  There was a close working relationship between the boroughs and the officers within the NLWA, and decisions were not taken without discussions with the boroughs.  With regards to amendments to legislation, there was no decision taken to scrutinise waste authorities.

Stephen Lawrence-Orumwense – Assistant Head of Legal Services – advised that the creation of the NLWA predated the Local Government Act 2000, and the scrutiny function arose from the LGA 2000.  If members wished to change the process then representations would have to be made to Parliament or the Secretary of State.

Councillor Rice invited Councillor Solomon to ask questions:

Did Haringey Council go out to tender before it appointed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

The Committee is asked to recommend to Council that the proposed arrangements, amended terms of reference and procedures for the JHOSC be agreed and implemented from the start of the new municipal year, subject to further review in a years’ time.

The Committee received the report as set out.

RESOLVED that the Committee recommend to Council that the proposed arrangements, amended terms of reference and procedures for the JHOSC be agreed and implemented from the start of the new municipal year, subject to further review in a years’ time. 

To receive the executive summary and notes of the Children and Young People’s Scrutiny Panel held on 21 January 2013.

Communities Scrutiny Panel

Councillor Winskill informed the Committee that the issue of tasers was to be discussed at the CSP meeting next week.

Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel

A special AHSP meeting had been held – a full briefing would be provided at the next meeting of OSC.

Environment and Housing Scrutiny Panel

Councillor McNamara requested an extra meeting of OSC before 29 April in order for the work carried out by the EHSP to be endorsed and the recommendations put to Cabinet.  Councillor McNamara was advised that any extra meetings would be at the discretion of the Chair, and in consultation with the Chief Executive.  However, these recommendations could be emailed to OSC members and then could be endorsed at the next meeting on 29 April 2013.

To receive any feedback from the Area Committees.

There was nothing to report.

To note the Forward Plan and highlight any areas the OSC may wish to consider for pre-decision scrutiny as part of its’ scheduled meetings calendar.

Following the meeting held between Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny, Councillor McNamara suggested that work could be done now to prepare for the next meeting in May, regardless of any potential changes in membership to OSC.

To discuss and agree the next steps of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee work programme.

Melanie Ponomarenko and Councillor McNamara had met with Dinesh Kotecha (Head of Corporate Property Services) to scope a piece of work on the Council’s property portfolio.

Members agreed to adopt the scoping document so that work could commence, but would send any suggestions for the inclusion of other areas if they had any.

This item and the Corporate Plan would be added to the agenda for April.

ACTION: Scrutiny Officers

There was no such business.

NOTED the date of the next meeting – 29 April 2013.

NOTED the responses to actions from the last meeting.

Councillor Winksill asked whether a response had been received to the letter sent to the Leader regarding Universal Credit.  Melanie Ponomarenko agreed to follow this up.

ACTION: Melanie Ponomarenko

Melanie Ponomarenko reminded Members of the Treasury Management Strategy training session to be held on 20 March 2013.