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 received from Cllr Diakides and Cllr Dunstall. Cllr Hymas attended the meeting as a substitute

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.

            There were no deputations, petitions or public questions received.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

In regards to a previous action around blocked footway gullies, officers asked the co-opted member of the Panel to email them with details of which gullies were blocked on Harringay Passage and these would be passed on to the drainage team. (Action: Ian).

The Panel enquired whether footway gullies could be marked with spray paint when they had been cleaned, as happened with road gullies. Officers advised that they would feed this back to the team.

Officers advised that they had contacted TfL about installing a joint SUDS scheme on Council land but that TfL had not shown any interest in undertaking such a scheme. The Chair agreed to pick up with officers outside of the meeting about would could be done to push back to TfL and get them to undertake drainage works in and around the road network that they mange. (Action:  Chair).

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting on 13^th July were agreed as a correct record of the meeting.

The Panel received a report and accompanying presentation which set out the Council’s response to the Baroness Casey Review into the standards of behaviour and the internal culture of the Metropolitan Police Service. The report was introduced by Cllr Adam Jogee, Cabinet Member for Community Safety & Cohesion, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 7 to 23.

The Cabinet Member welcomed the fact that the Panel had requested an update on this subject, given the concerns shared by a lot of people about racism, homophobia, misogyny and the generally shocking mind sets of some members of the police, as outlined in the Casey report. The Cabinet Member set out that he had emailed members separately outlining the discussions he had with the police. The Cabinet Member commented it was incumbent upon Members to keep our communities safe and to hold the police to account.

The Cabinet Member advised that he and the Leader saw their role as acting as a critical friend and were not there to make excuses on behalf of the police. To that end, there had been frank discussions with senior police colleagues. The Met Commissioner had visited Haringey twice in recent months and the Cabinet Member and Leader met regularly with the Borough Commander. The Cabinet Member set out that during these discussions there was no space for Police colleagues to not understand how seriously the Council was taking the issues raised in the Casey report. The Cabinet Member reiterated that the administration was not seeking to do the Police’s job for them, but that they would be seeking to hold them to account.

The following arose during the discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel commented that one concern that had been raised in the past was that a lot of police officers in London had been drawn from all over the country and perhaps did not understand the different communities and cultures that they served. Members would like to see police officers be representative of communities like those in Haringey. Members sought clarity about how future community engagement events with police would focus on the bigger picture, rather than quite localised problems. The Cabinet Member responded that, in his experience, the vast majority of police officers were hard working, law-abiding, public servants who did understand the communities they served and were willing to learn about them when they did not. It was commented that the Safer Neighbourhood Teams did care about communities and wanted to serve them.

b.    The Cabinet Member set out that the background to this was 14 years of austerity and sustained attacks on the funding model for public services, including policing which had led to the scaling back of Safer Neighbourhood policing. Within this context, morale within the police was not great. The Cabinet Member acknowledged the need for police to represent the communities that they served and that he had seen the Police have stalls in Wood Green where they held pop-up recruitment drives.

c.    In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.

The Panel received a report which provided feedback on the Council’s current street lighting contractor’s programmes and performance, and also discusses other issues relating to the street lighting central management system (CMS) and UK Power Networks (UKPN). The report was introduced by Mark Stevens, AD for Direct Services as set out in the agenda pack at pages 23 -28. The following arose as part of the discussion of this report:

1. The Panel sought clarification about whether the Council was on target to for the implementation of a new central management system by November 2023. In response, officers advised that a new lead officer had been appointed by Marlborough Highways and that they would be pushing Urbis Schreder to ensure that this was achieved. In general, officers advised that they were satisfied with the performance of Marlborough Highways but acknowledged that the performance of Urbis Schreder was less satisfactory.
2. The Chair advocated the importance of street lighting in terms of keeping people safe, and in particular in terms of preventing violence against women and girls. The Panel sought clarification about the process for fixing lamp columns that were broken. In response, officers advised that Marlborough Highways would go out and attempt to fix the problem, if the LED was damaged for instance. In some cases, the issue may be caused by a conflict between the CMS and the lighting equipment and they would try to resolve this where possible, however it may be a more fundamental problem. In cases where there was an electricity supply problem, the issue had to be referred to UKPN and they had 28 days to resolve the issue.
3. The Panel raised concerns about the time taken to fix broken lamp columns, particularly in Harringay ward. In response, officers apologised and acknowledged that there was a breakdown in the process between inspections and columns being incorrectly recorded as being fixed, which led to complaints. Officers advised that there was progress being made on this issue and advised that the team were working hard to resolve it.
4. In response to a follow up question, the Assistant Director advised that he first became aware that this was a bigger problem that just individual components not working, following the last scrutiny panel meeting. Officers advised that they were concerned that there was a bigger problem after hearing from Members of the panel and going back to the team and looking at the issue in more detail. Officers advised that they shared members’ frustrations about lamp columns seemingly being reported as fixed when they were not.
5. In response to a further question, officers set out that the Highways Group Engineer had been tasked with overseeing this issue and that it was expected that the issue would be resolved. The Team had been asked to a keep a record of the works that had been done and the issues that came up, and to ensure that issues were being fixed.
6. The Panel suggested that the number of open cases should be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230.

To follow

The Panel received a report which provided an update on Electric Vehicle (EV) charging across the borough and the Council’s wider Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Action Plan. The report was introduced by Joe Baker, Head of Carbon Management as set out in the additional report pages 1-4. Mark Stevens, AD for Direct Services was present for this Item. Cllr Mike Hakata, Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Environment and Transport, and Deputy Leader of the Council was also present online. The following arose in discussion of the report:

1. The Panel sought clarification around instances of people without a driveway trailing charging cables over the footway to charge their vehicles and whether this was allowed. In response, officers advised that this was an offence under the Highways Act. It is possible to have a channel cut into the footway so that the cable was no longer a trip hazard but the person would have to pay the cost for the works and would need public liability insurance. Furthermore, that person would not have an automatic right to park in front of their own property. The Panel noted that whilst some local authorities would permit a channel to be installed many were reluctant to do so, as it was costly and impractical. Instead, Haringey was seeking to increase the number of on-street EV charging points.
2. The Panel noted that channels had been cut in front of the Civic Centre to support a SUDS scheme. It was also commented that when a person applied for a crossover they were essentially preventing from anyone parking in front of their property. In response to a request for clarification, officers advised that, pertaining to trailing cables over the footway being an offence, the relevant part of the Highways Act 1980 was Section 178, sub-section 1.
3. The Panel suggested that the stated goal of 400 on-street chargers was not enough to support large scale usage of EVs. It was commented that if everyone had an EV, two or three charging points would be needed on every street. The Panel also questioned why the on-street chargers were at the end of streets and queried whether this was related to CPZ boundaries and the need for a new CPZ consultation to be undertaken. In response, officers advised that whilst the number of vehicles was increasing, so was their range and so they required less charging time. This would reduce the number of charging points needed over time. In regard to chargers being located at the end of roads, officers advised that this was more do with the charger having more accessibility at the end of roads and the fact that people were more likely to object if one was installed in front of their home. It was also noted that the solution to widespread access to EV charging would likely be market driven and EV charging facilities available at petrol stations, for example.
4. The Panel referred to small cylindrical charging points recently installed by Barnet, called Trojan energy hubs.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 231.

The following items were put forward for the following meeting:

·         The Priorities for the Community Safety partnership for the year

·         The Police’s response to Baroness Casey Review and A new Met for London.

RESOLVED

That the Panel considered its work plan for 2022-24, attached at Appendix A of the report, and whether any amendments were required.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

·         6^th November

·         19^th December

·         27^th February

·         6^th November

·         19^th December

·         27^th February