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’.

Cllr Adamou and Cllr Carroll

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 as noted below).   

None.

None.

To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager responded that no deputations had been received within the statutory timeframe.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

The Chair and Committee AGREED the minutes from the last meeting.

To answer questions on the aspects of the Cabinet Member’s portfolio that fall under the Panel’s remit:

·         Waste management and Recycling

·         Fly-tipping and Waste Enforcement

·         Highways

·         Flooding

·         Parking

Further focusing on the corporate delivery plan update  for quarter 1.  This report is to follow after publication for the Cabinet meeting.

The Chair introduced the session, highlighting that the Cabinet Member’s remit was part of the Corporate Delivery Plan for quarter one, and concerned:

·         Waste management and recycling.

·         Fly tipping and waste enforcement.

·         Highways

·         Flooding

·         Parking.

Waste management and recycling.

Waste management and recycling in the borough was discussed - the main points summarised below:

• A request was made for more information on the cost benefit analysis and collections of the at-home textiles recycling trial scheme. The Head of Waste Management responded that the statistics could be sent to the Committee. ACTION. She also emphasised that the textile recycling scheme was no longer a trial but part of the service.
• Questions were also raised around the new advertising campaign on waste in the borough and whether there had been any behaviour change since then. The Cabinet Member for Tackling Inequality and Resident Services indicated that it was too early to say but the adverts were part of an education package for the public around waste.
• Discussion then turned to the clear up operation after Finsbury Park events which councillors thought unsatisfactory. The Cabinet Member asserted that they had a good set up. Complaints were dealt with as part of the Local Area Management Plan. She also clarified that rubbish collection within the parks would fall under Cllr Arkell. Questions were then asked about whether collections could increase after a major event. The Cabinet Member reiterated that this was not under her portfolio, there were demarcations as to the responsibilities. However, the overall contract will be renewed for 2027, and the team will be looking at needs-based resourcing and more flexibility in the new contract.

·         The issue of a lack of recycling facilities on streets was then raised. There was only one point of disposal for waste at Bruce Castle – and no recycling points. The Cabinet Member responded that bin park assets vary, however they are looking at standardising them across the borough to dual recycling bins. She stated that volunteers who do litter picks did not always understand the colour codes for bin liners making contamination a real issue especially in park bins.

·         It was stated that the current waste management arrangements especially after major events such as football matches were unsatisfactory. Especially around parking areas. Residents’ bins were being used for waste disposal - if waste was being disposed of at all. It was felt by councillors that the footprint for cleaning was too small around major events. The Cabinet Member responded that the council did not receive funds from the Spurs club for the clean-up operation. She explained that they were currently in talks with Spurs about this.

·         Dog – waste disposal units and their availability in residential areas were then discussed. It was brought to the Committee’s attention that residents complain when dog waste gets put in their general bins. The Cabinet Member stated that the team were running a campaign to show dog owners how to dispose of waste correctly - however it was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Report to follow.

• The scale of part pavement parking issues in the borough were discussed. Questions were asked whether enforcement was prioritised according to urgency and the impact on those affected. The Cabinet Member replied that there had been eight statutory consultations with another two planned. She stated that there were 102 roads with problems and some very complex engineering issues. The team was taking a few complicated roads at a time, as these would take a longer time to resolve. She stated that she would resend the Committee the Cabinet paper – where the 102 roads are published and graded according to complexity. She also said that she would look at the criteria for urgency – as she thought it was a good idea to prioritise works by those affected such as school children. ACTION.

• The Co-opted member of the Committee then raised the issue of abolishing daily visitors permits. He stated he had a very well attended meeting with residents in the borough regarding this where several concerns were raised. He cited concerns that the strategy considered only circumstantial evidence as its basis. Moreover, the CPZ zones varied. The proposal would mean some very expensive stays for some of the borough. He cited that it would be £16 per day for a visitor to Northumberland Park. He was very concerned about the failure of the council to follow the prescribed consultation process. Residents were not aware of any consultations. He pointed out that the failure of the council to co-design and produce changes with the public, made the short consultation period an issue, as any feedback given by residents would go unheard. The Cabinet Member responded that legally she could not answer most of these concerns as to do so could be construed as influencing the statutory consultation and the council could not show any predetermination of the decision. She emphasised that the Cabinet had not given the go ahead to abolish daily visitor permits or any of the other proposals made, only agreeing that such matters be consulted upon.  She asked the Co-opted member of the Committee to urge residents to respond to the consultation once it had begun. She stated that the council would consider the objections if they were valid. She clarified that the consultation process being described by the co-opted member applied to consultation for CPZs, which was not prescribed by the law but an approach that Haringey Council had introduced. She also clarified that the statutory consultation would commence on the 16^th of October and will last 21 days and will be advertised as per any other consultation. The Cabinet Member then asked the Committee to note that there is a cap on parking on council estates. Street parking was £3 per hour – and the council part-subsidises this, so the resident pays £1.25 per hour and £4 per day. She said that statutory consultation results would deem whether it was right for the borough or not.
• A concern was then raised about the ANPR  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Chair then notified members of the Scrutiny Café consultation on the 20^{th of} September and encouraged attendance.

It was requested that street lighting be added to future agendas as an item for discussion. It was viewed that street lighting that did not work was a systematic problem. A question was put to the Committee on whether there should be a full Scrutiny Review of street lighting, as it had been a full year later since concerns were first raised and the function may be under resourced. It was questioned whether there needed to be a fundamental change or more evidence for budget holders to ask for more resource. The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager stated that a short report on the Committee’s views could be given to Cabinet and a response asked for. She stated that periodic reports would occur regardless - however if it was more depth that the Committee required, a meeting should be set up as to how best they wanted their questions answered of the lighting situation. The Co-opted member raised that this would have to happen with some urgency as the clocks were going back next month. ACTION

The website was then raised as something that could be scrutinised in a review. As the website and communications came under the remit of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC), it was asked whether it was possible to ask the OSC  to delegate this issue to them. The Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager responded that this was possible to put forward under the OSC however consideration should be taken as to the length and timing of the review also the timings of the recommendations. The Chair then suggested that the Democratic Services and Scrutiny Manager would come back to the Committee with some options on how best to proceed with these requests. ACTION.

The Committee agreed that the cycling infrastructure was something that should be on the Committee’s workplans. The relationship between ASB, ASB enforcement and Housing and funding was also discussed – and was agreed to be added to the workplan.

The Committee then agreed to move the dates of the Budget scrutiny meeting to 14^th November to allow for better timings for responses and an online briefing session and training to be conducted. The next meeting on Community Safety would then be moved to December. ACTION

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

None.

7 November 2024 – online budget briefing

14 November 2024 – new meeting to consider budget recommendations – for comment /agreement

17 December 2024

24 February 2025

14^th November 2024

17^th December 2024