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

Apologies for absence were noted from Cllr Adam Jogee, Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Jobs and Community Cohesion.  

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).   

The Panel was advised that as Cllr Jogee was unable to attend the meeting, Agenda Item Nine would be withdrawn.

There were no declarations of interest.

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

The Panel received a deputation on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods from Alexander Charalambous. The main points put forward as part of the deputation were noted as:

·         Following the introduction of LTNs, two mile journeys that used to take ten minutes now took over an hour.

·         LTN’s had increased pollution as the closure of roads under the scheme had increased stationary traffic. Cyclists and pedestrians breathed in increased amounts of pollution as they moved past this traffic.

·         Schools on ‘sacrificial’ roads were also seeing increased levels of pollution from standing traffic

·         Local businesses were down anything up to 100%

·         Cars are being drive additional unnecessary miles in order to skirt the LTN.

·         It was suggested that those living on affected roads were being discriminated against. Previously, traffic congestion was evenly spread but now disproportionally impacted the poorer sections of our communities. 

·         The deputation speaker questioned the extent to which Haringey had carried out a fair consultation, given that that consultations were weighted to those inside the LTNs who were disproportionally a white British demographic and were the likely beneficiaries of the LTNs. However, these people have still submitted objections.

·         10,000 people in total had raised objections to date and the objections of disability organisations and special schools were ignored. Schools were disproportionally within sacrificial roads. The deputee commented that LTNs had been done to residents rather than for or in consultation with.

·         One of the justifications for LTNs was reduction in car traffic but, it was suggested that, Haringey had taken its data from a discredited report. In the ten inner London Boroughs that introduced them,  LTN’s had in fact increased the number of miles driven by cars in 2020 by an average of 11.4% compared with 8.9% for the two inner London boroughs who did not implement LTNs.

·         There is no data to show that Haringey is monitoring carbon emissions, no baseline data before the LTNs, no documented plan to show Haringey is monitoring emissions during the LTN trial. Without this there is no objective basis with which to determine whether carbon emissions and air pollution have increased or decreased. The speaker suggested that if there were plans to monitor this then the Panel should be pushing for this to be publically available.

·         A further justification for LTNs was increased physical activity but 65% of Haringey residents were physically active which was higher than the national average. How would this be measured and in what time frame?

·         71% of serious accidents in built-up areas happened on 30MPH or main roads but LTNs closed 20 MPH back roads and push that traffic on to these more dangerous roads. It was suggested that a far better idea would be to keep all roads open and make them all 20MPH. This would also help encourage active travel as all roads are safer.

·         The community was not against the goals of the LTNs but no evidence was submitted to show how the schemes would meet their stated goals. It was suggested that data used by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting on 5^th September.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting on 5^th September were agreed as a correct record.

To invite comments from the Panel on the priorities for the borough's Community Safety Partnership and current Community Safety issues. To receive an update on domestic violence and hate crime, and what was being done to tackle under-reporting of these crime types.

*Clerks Note- The meeting was adjourned for a short while following a disturbance by a member of the public who had been present in the Westbury room observing the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 19:41 and re-adjourned at 19:50.*

The Committee received a presentation and accompanying cover report which provided an overview of Haringey’s crime performance and the local priorities for the Community Safety Partnership. The Panel were invited to provide comments on these priorities as well as current community safety issues in general. The update also included information relating to domestic violence and hate crime, which Panel members had requested at a previous meeting.  The presentation was provided jointly by officers from the Community Safety team and also by the North Area BCU Commander, Detective Chief Superintendent Caroline Haines (Police). The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

a.    The Panel raised concern about a perceived lack of visibility for local Safer Neighbourhood Team officers and were keen that that a visible local police presence at a ward level was maintained. The Panel also commented on the importance of tackling drug-related crime to local residents. In response, the Borough Commander acknowledged that there was a feeling in the community of police not being visible enough. The Borough Commander set out that there was a commitment to two ward officers and a PSCO per ward (as part of the Safer Neighbourhood Team), however it was acknowdged that resources were also stretched across the frontline. As a result, police officers could be called away centrally to undertake other policing duties, which were referred to as ‘abstractions’. The Borough Commander acknowdged the influence of drugs on the proliferation of crime and advised that the police were working closely with the Council to provide weeks of action, which would increase visibility within a targeted location for that week.

b.    The Panel raised concerns about Stop and Search and the harm that could be done, particularly around disproportionality towards young black men. The Panel questioned how the value of the use of Stop and Search was measured against the harm that it caused to individuals. In response, the Borough Commander advised that her officers did a lot of work across the community and also with new police recruits to make sure they were aware of the disproportional elements of Stop and Search, particularly the impact on young black men. The Borough Commander advised that they regularly reviewed the data around Stop and Search, both in terms of its effectiveness and also in terms of disproportionality. The Panel was advised that the key for police colleagues was to minimise disproportionality where possible. Enhanced training was undertaken with the Haringey Independent Stop and Search Monitoring Group for new recruits, which had also been extended to a pan-London community training initiative to improve trust and confidence in policing.

c.    The Borough Commander also identified that the BCU deployed a number of external resources including TSG and BTCF to tackle violent crime. These officers were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

To receive an update on the Haringey Community Gold Programme, including an overview of the HCG scheme, timelines, and the latest outcomes.

The Panel received a report, which provided an update on the Haringey Community Gold (HCG) Scheme, including an overview of the scheme, timelines and the latest outcomes. The report was introduced by Eduardo Araujo, Senior Tottenham Community Safety Manager as set out in the agenda pack at pages 29 to 36. The following arose during the discussion of the report:

1. The Panel sought assurances around the stated £71k carry forward from the scheme and what this would be spent on, in response officers clarified that this was the savings accrued over the three years of the scheme.
2. The Panel questioned whether HCG had any activities in place to tackle young people and in-work poverty. In response, officers advised that on the ground this would likely be a navigation service, which would pinpoint people towards where they could receive support. Officers advised that they had, for example had been able to direct young people to support with food poverty. Officers also advised that there were also a number of qualitative outputs that would come to fruition as the scheme matured
3. In relation to a question around partners, officers advised that there were six named partners, along with 75 other organisations that they worked with.
4. The Chair questioned whether HCG had linked in with the Bridge of Hope organisation who had large partners such as Costco and also had clear outputs around health and wellbeing, including for young people. The Chair agreed to share the contact details for the organisation with officers. (Action: Chair).

RESOLVED

Noted.

Verbal Update.

Portfolio areas relevant to the Panel:

Co-Chair of Community Safety Partnership;

·         Safer streets:

o   Women’s safety

o   Anti-social behaviour

·         Community cohesion:

o   Engaging with communities and stakeholders

o   Hate crime

o   Prevent

o   Early intervention model

This agenda item was withdrawn.

RESOLVED

That the Panel noted the draft work programme.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

15 December 2022

16 March 2023

15 December 2022

16 March 2023