Agenda and draft 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 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein.

Apologies had been received from Mr Eubert Malcolm.

There was no urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2025 as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2025 be agreed as an accurate record.

Mr Dan Rogers, a representative from the Haringey Community Collaborative, would be added to the membership.

Mr Mark Wolski provided an update regarding the Action Tracker.

An update could be provided on the new services relating to VAWG which would be available from April 2026. 

Mr Mark Wolski introduced the item. The planned approach for a new Community Safety Strategy 2027 onwards was outlined, along with details as to incorporating a Crime and Disorder survey to act as a baseline to identifying matters of pubic concern. The new strategy would incorporate ‘Theories of Change’ that would enable action planning and more effective monitoring of plans.

The meeting heard:

·         In relation to digital exclusion, there would be a comprehensive plan that underpinned the work in relation to having an engagement plan.

·         On a recent ward walk, there were understood to be a few Turkish speaking elderly residents that had reported that they could not access certain systems. Due to the method of reporting, the public had some notable issues regarding making reports to the Police. These issues would be more carefully considered.  

RESOLVED:

That the item be noted.

Mr Sandeep Broca introduced the item. 

The meeting heard:

·         In relation to sexual offences, it would be useful to see the breakdown of sexual offences to understand which ones were made during street working and which ones were within the domestic setting to understand the figures reported. An increase in the numbers of reporting was seen as a positive as it meant that confidence in the system was present for people to be able to submit reports. An increase in the numbers often meant better protection.

·         There appeared to be a good processes within the Council and the Police to detect and liaise with victims and to deal with offenders more appropriately.        

·         In relation to public protection related offences including slavery, stalking, child sexual exploitation, there had been an increase in reporting.

·         It was important to consider what the borough was trying to achieve in terms of impact as how the community felt about crime in their area was critical. Crime levels may collapse in certain areas, but speaking to residents demonstrated a fearful position and often residents felt worse off than they had done previously. In the coming years, measures should consider subtle elements and in a four year or five year plan. The borough needed to consider the impact of the year on year perception of communities by engagement.

·         The statistics could be considered alongside positive outcome rates. This was so it could be understood how the borough was actually dealing and managing reports of crime effectively.

·         The 43% increase in drug offences from a Police perspective was considered a positive because it meant officers were locating drugs and prosecuting drugs offences. It would be interesting to see what avenues were being taken with those offenders to make sure that the borough was providing them with relevant support and how they were being prosecuted. However, presenting data to the public as an increase of 43% could result in concern that drug use or supply was increasing, but it likely was not and was most likely due to better action, better reporting and better recording.

·         It was not clear what reporting standards were like in order to overlay information such as in relation to arrests made, how many were then placed into programs. It was difficult for the borough to deal with the tracking and progress especially as the volume got higher. However, the borough’s capacity to cope and deal with the issues presented did not increase. It still had the same resources.

·         Over the last four years, the way that the borough recorded robbery and theft had changed. In 2022, what might have been recorded as a ‘robbery’ would now be recorded as a ‘theft person’. This could cause a fluctuation in statistics.

·         Area profiles would also be taken into consideration. The theft person statistics would be impacted as well depending on what kind of modus operandi was present. The introduction of e-scooters and e-bikes saw an increase in theft person because certain logistics made it easier to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Mr Mark Wolski introduced the item.

The meeting heard:

·         In relation to the resourcing of sites, these each came with their own set of governance, their own set of expectations, own set of command structures. Haringey was the only borough in London, possibly the only authority in the country that had two Clear, Hold, Build sites. This caused logistical issues.

·         The presentation focused broadly on Northumberland Park.

·         With regard to Finsbury Park,  coordination across the three boroughs, particularly between Hackney and Islington was good. Haringey did contribute and as the owner of the park there was work that had been undertaken by parks teams regarding rough sleepers. There had been significant achievements and the Home Office had approved a position for a park patrol to combat violence against women and girls for one night a week in Finsbury Park. The night was still to be selected.

·         With regard to Northumberland Park, slides were shared that demonstrated changes in reported crime levels, though it was difficult to provide reassurance to the local residents that issues were being dealt with until an issue had been fully dealt with. Work was being done so that Police appeared more visible to the public.

·         When looking at drug supply or drug use, some statistics had gone up and this was due to arrests and prosecutions. The same was true of knife crime, including possession of weapons and this too was due to police action. However, police action can result in an uptick in crime levels creating an impression of there being more crime.

·         The Clear, Hold, Build model as a concept was designed  for discrete geographical locations that were easy to manage and was an appropriate size for the resourcing.

·         The chosen area was meant to just be one area of Northumberland Park, but there was some encouragement for it to be extended further and therefore it did so. There had been a belief that there would be constant increases of money and resources that would be able to come in. There was no end date.

·         The ‘clear’ phase which was police-led action where an area was ‘cleared’. This followed the hold phase where partnership approaches were taken to make sure the progress was sustainable. However, the stages of ‘clear’ and ‘hold’ were mostly done at the same time. The ‘build’ phase was to invest into the area in some way. The borough of Enfield had reportedly benefitted from a £12 millionbudget to make improvements in certain areas, although this would not always be the case for all areas.

·         In relation to joint working with Enfield, being adjacent to Edmonton brought some challenges. There were challenges of working across two boroughs (Haringey and Enfield) and beyond. Examples included, how statutory and voluntary agencies from both boroughs work with individuals who did not recognise borough boundaries and a significant challenge in relation to vulnerable people placed in Haringey owing to care and support provision that was available.

·         It was to critical work with the Housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

• ASB
• Hate Crime
• VAWG
• Serious Violence

Mr Adam Browne and Mr Mark Wolski introduced the section on antisocial behaviour.

The meeting agreed for the work relating to mental health to be endorsed and reported upon at a future meeting. Members would also receive a document on the project overview in relation to the mental health work.

Ms Elvan Austay introduced the section on Hate Crime. 

The meeting heard:

·         The Hate Crime team encouraged all residents and communities to report hate crime to the Police via 101 or the online reporting form. Council services would direct them to various support services, but the report being made to the Police directly would always be more impactful for Victim Support or data purposes and ensure the investigation process was being carried out.

·         Hate Crime Awareness Week provided an awareness of communities and faith groups had really helped the borough discuss third party reporting and having hubs around the borough where trusted organisations played an important role for members of the community that may struggle with English as their first language or had bad experience or they felt that they will be judged by community members if they were to report hate crimes. It helped to be able to go to a church or mosques or another similar institution where they could report their experiences. 

·         Certain locations may be targeted due to the frequency of interaction they had from certain community members.

·         Anti-Israeli sentiment was captured as a hate crime. There was a clear distinction between anti-Israeli government sentiment and antisemitism. It was notable that anti-Israeli government sentiment was contributing towards some of the reporting.

·         Assessing repeat victim prevalence was important. It was not clear how many repeat victims were contributing as a victim to crime trends and it was important for them to be supported as required. Mitigation measures would be reported back to a future meeting.

Mr Will Maimaris introduced the section on VAWG.  

The meeting heard:

·         In relation to MARAC, there was an area of risk for the partnership to be aware of and progression regarding the area would be explored at a future meeting. Around 500 survivors were subject to harm per year and were at risk of homicide. The situation also required systems and processes to be in place and operating well.

·         At a recent pilot meeting of a SWASE (Sex workers and at risk of sexual exploitation), approximately 10 cases had been examined and there appeared to be significant opportunities for joint working - they were not all subject to oversight from statutory agencies. This had been picked up as a theme for practitioners. There was an emerging opportunity regarding this cohort to examine their circumstances via the lens of domestic abuse as some of the women were controlled by their partners.. There appeared to be a need for a MARAC type of approach for the cohort in these situations.

·         There were 30 professionals that attended the meeting and all contributed to the different interventions. There were also some key stakeholders which always included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

-          Reduction of Re-offending (Young People and Adults)

-          Prevent

-          Substance Misuse

Ms Eleanor Girling and Mr Mark Wolski introduced the section on Prevent.

The meeting heard:

·         The School Prevent Advisory Group, Multi Faith Forums, training regarding digital harms were new activities that were being delivered and this was to be celebrated.

·         The Council needed to assess the implication of further funding cuts.

Mr Mark Wolski introduced the section on Substance Misuse and Reduction of Reoffending.

The meeting heard:

·         Police, when coming across a re-offender, would often focus on taking remedial action, but needed to consider more data overlap to see why a re-offence had taken place and if the right pathways had been provided, such as to education and housing.

·         The data for an individual re-offending was always reliant on self-reporting and this needed to be considered.

RESOLVED:

The meeting noted the reports, endorsed mitigations and invited any progress reports.

There had been an email comment sent regarding various issues in secondary schools regarding the loss of school’s officers. This included breaking down of intelligence barriers, responsiveness to issues arising within schools.

Reassurance was sought regarding mitigation of the loss.  Consideration needed to be given regarding how developments could take place working between the Council, the Police, schools to use those CYP officers as productively as possible. Feedback was needed on this.

The borough did not have sufficient resources to reimagine the support.

Secondary school headteachers raised an issue about youth provision. An area of focus was the timing of 3:30pm to 700 pm. It was difficult to engage with schools. They were individualistic and inward-looking. They appeared to assume that young people knew about various programs in place such as youth activity. It may be useful to have a discussion with the youth service and youth participation steered by children's services with the head teachers to have a more open discussion about having stronger relationships with young people. It would be useful to bring the Police into the discussion as well.

The youth service had some good outreach workers. The Haringey Learning Partnership did outreach work. There was also a Youth Justice Service.

A forum could be organised alongside head teachers to talk about how the Police and youth and external agencies could work more effectively with them.

There appeared to be an overlap with child safeguarding partnership arrangements in terms of duplication of governance and oversight.

A suggestion was made for safeguarding boards, children, adults, health and wellbeing, community safety outlets to come together on overall strategic issues.

Police could be consulted on their immediate plans and progress could be reported back to a future meeting.

In relation to Prevent and Protect, a meeting was to be held on the implications of Martyn’s Law and similar regulations. This would need to come back to the meeting as a discussion about governance and oversight.

There would be legislation in relation to venues venue hire. The progress of this would be reported back to the meeting.  

Item 15 is likely to be subject to a motion to exclude the press and public from the meeting as it contains exempt information as defined in Section 100a of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1985); paragraphs 1 and 2, namely information relating to any individual and information likely to reveal an identity of an individual

This item was withdrawn.

Report to follow.

This item was withdrawn.