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.

None.

None.

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

None.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of 18 January 2016.

The following comments were made in respect of the minutes of the meeting of 18 January:

·         Minutes (CSP53):   It was noted that the issue of the late night levy had been added to the Panel’s work plan and would be considered as a potential item for next years work plan.

·         Cabinet Member Questions: Cabinet Member for Environment (CSP55):  Panel Members expressed concern that responses to the issues raised had not yet been responded to. It was agreed that the matters in question would be followed up and a response circulated to Panel Members before the beginning of the Purdah period.

·         Update on Progress:  Interim Scrutiny Report on Strategic Parking Issues Ahead of the Tottenham Hotspur Redevelopment (CSP 56):  Panel Members requested an update on the Panel’s recommendations regarding this item and it was agreed that this would be requested from relevant officers before the beginning of the Purdah period.

·         Waste, Street Cleansing and Recycling: Current Performance (CSP57):    It was agreed that responses to the Panel’s requests for information and recommendations would be requested from relevant officers before the beginning of the Purdah period.

In answer to a question, Tom Hemming, Interim Neighbourhood Action Team Manager, reported that there had been no fixed penalty notices issued in respect of window replacement stickers on shop fronts.  In respect of the issue of stickers to be placed on bins to show what they are intended to be used for, it was noted that a suitable design for this was currently being worked on.

It was noted that the fly tipping strategy was currently under development.  This would emphasise that it was a quality of life issue.  The aim was to focus on the totality of fly tipping and target the worst areas of the borough. There was anecdotal evidence that landlords were involved.  Panel Members were of the view that there was a need for a greater level of enforcement. 

Mr Hemming reported that there had been difficulties experienced with the sweeping of the pocket park on West Green Road and, in order to remedy this, it was proposed to re-surface it. 

AGREED:

1.    That responses be provided by relevant officers to the outstanding issues raised at the meeting on 18 January by the start of the Purdah period; and

2.    That the minutes of the meeting of 18 January 2016 be approved.

To report on;

·         The Violence Against Women and Girls strategy;

·         Current performance issues; and

·         Progress to date with the implementation of the recommendations of the  scrutiny review on Violence Against Women and Girls.      

Victoria Hill, Interim Strategic Violence Against Women and Girls Lead, reported on progress with the implementation of the recommendations of the Panel’s review on violence against women and girls. 

She stated that a lot of progress had been achieved to date.  The recommendations had been helpful, constructive and challenging.  She highlighted the following issues:

·         A new approach from Women’s Aid, entitled Change that Lasts, was being explored with national Women’s Aid as part of the development of the violence against women and girls strategy. It was hoped that Haringey might  be a pilot site. 

·         Performance was a complex issue and it was often difficult to get accurate data due to the nature of violence against women and girls.  A new data product was being developed and consideration was being given to how it could be used effectively to inform commissioning decisions;

·         Very high risk cases were referred to the MARAC.  Haringey’s rates were higher than the London average.  Cases were subject to annual assessment.  The target for the number of referrals was 410 per year by 2017 and 70% of this total had so far been achieved.   Work was taking place with community safety partners to develop a flagging mechanism in respect of repeat cases and it was envisaged that this should enable the target to be reached.  No area nationally had met the 100% target.

In answer to a question, it was noted that the role of Hearthstone had been reviewed but it remained an important part of the structure.  The term “Violence Against Women and Girls” had been agreed by the both the UN and MOPAC.  The Council had subsequently also adopted the terminology.   It recognised that women and girls were disproportionally affected by the issue but it was nevertheless acknowledged that men could also be affected and they were not excluded from services.  There was a detailed referral pathway and it was agreed that this would be re-circulated to Members of the Panel. 

Ms Hill reported that domestic violence incidents reported to the Police had increased by 20%, which mirrored the same trend seen across London. Referrals from GPs for domestic violence were still low.  However, CCG funding had now been secured for IRIS , which was hoped to increase referrals from GPs.  The IRIS scheme had led to very large increases in referrals elsewhere.  It would be commissioned for three years initially and include 25 practices.  Dentists were not included within this.

In answer to a question, Ms Hill reported that the CCG wanted to explore the effectiveness of IRIS further.  They were aiming to test the effectiveness of the scheme initially by piloting it.  This would enable comparisons to be made with other GP practices not involved.  It was agreed that the CCG would be invited to report on progress of implementing IRIS to the Panel in due course. 

The Panel noted that many people reported violence initially to childcare facilities, such as nurseries, schools and crèches.  These were linked into the MARAC.  In addition,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Councillor Vanier, the Cabinet Member of Communities, reported on progress and key issues arising from her portfolio.

In respect of Violence Against Women and Girls, she reported that the overriding issue was funding.  This was always short term and was fragmented in nature.  The Violence Against Women and Girls Commissioning Group was looking at the development of a co-ordinated approach to funding/commissioning and progress had been made in the last two years.  Funding came predominantly from the MOPAC.  The current tranche of funding came to an end in March 2017 and it was not currently clear what would replace it.  It was possible that the MOPAC would adopt a pan London approach to funding rather than focussing on boroughs.

In answer to a question regarding gangs, it had been proposed that Haringey would be included within Operation Shield.  However, concerns had been raised within the local community about the scheme which they did not feel would work effectively.  The borough had therefore decided to design their own scheme, which would adopt a “carrot and stick” approach.  A call-in of key suspects would be taking place as part of the local scheme.  This would provide an opportunity for the community to air their views on the impact of gang activity. An ex gang member and a mother whose son had been killed in gang violence would be present. Any gang members who wished to exit would be given support.  If incidents continued, a robust line would be taken by the Police.  Community safety partners were pleased that the community had developed their own approach and it had been noted that boroughs in Operation Shield had been less successful than anticipated. The local scheme had been entitled “Communities Against Violence”.

Mr Sygrave reported that there had been a good level of community involvement in the initiative.  It was to the credit of the borough that there had been insistence on community support for the scheme. 

The Cabinet Member commented that there was patchy funding of community safety and it was an issue that the service was constantly having to deal with.  A very high percentage of staff were on fixed term contracts and there was a great deal of uncertainty about how future work would be funded. 

The Cabinet Member reported that the issue of how the emerging communities within the borough were engaged with was currently being considered.   Officers had been asked to prepare a report on the issue.  Work that already been done had shown that people from these communities were not markedly different from other groups in their aspirations.  Her intention was to set up a working group of Members to progress the issue and input from them would be very welcome.

Panel Members were of the view that it was essential that offensive and extremist graffiti was removed very quickly.  It was agreed that information regarding its removal would be circulated to Panel Members.

AGREED:

1.    That initial outcomes from the work currently being undertaking to develop closer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

To provide an update on progress and outcomes to date with the Team Noel Park pilot.                                                                                     

Tom Hemming, Interim Neighbourhood Action Team Manager, reported on progress with the Team Noel Park initiative. 

The aim of the scheme was to promote greater community ownership of local issues and, through this, increase resident satisfaction and pride in the area.  Its objective was to improve outcomes and reduce demand on services.  Engagement activity had started last year with meetings with key community stakeholders and bringing partners on board. 

Communications materials had been delivered to all households in the ward and a Community Conference had publicly launched the scheme in November 2015.  There was now an improved relationship with the community, knowledge of key stakeholders and a shared understanding of ambitions.  Focussed enforcement activity had taken place on front gardens, with 95 warning letters sent out.  There had been 85% compliance with these.  In respect of dumped rubbish, 28 fixed penalty notices had been issued and 14 enforcement notices. 

Work was taking place to further increase awareness of Team Noel Park through communications and presence at resident association meetings.  Lessons would be learnt from progress to date. 

The Panel noted that, whilst there had been some small amount of additional resources, the initiative aimed to operate without any additional funding.  When the scheme was evaluated, funding would be reviewed.  In particular, it was hoped that the scheme would lead to a reduction in fly tipping.  The sustainability of the work that had been undertaken needed to be considered though.  Once the pilot in Noel Park had been completed, consideration would be given to other wards. 

Panel Members commented that costs could be offset against savings from fly tipping.  Consideration could also be given to using ward budgets to sustain the governance. 

It was noted that the feedback from residents on the scheme would be obtained as part of the wider residents survey and it was agreed that the outcome of the evaluation would be presented back to the Panel.    Criteria to determine which wards were included in future similar schemes would be developed and this would include data relating to crime from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC).

AGREED:

That a report be made back to the Panel in due course on the outcomes from the pilot scheme, including feedback from residents and costs.

To consider the future work plan for the Panel.

Panel Members fed back on the visit that had been undertaken to Cambridge as part of the review on cycling.  Particular reference was made to;

·         The very large cycle parking facility at the railway station;

·         The high numbers of cyclists that were visible on the road;

·         Action by the local authorities to shift the balance in favour of cycling, including included removing lanes of traffic, giving priority to cyclists in many areas and installing floating bus stops.  There was cross party support for measures and they had shown determination in withstanding criticism. 

In terms of recommendations for the review, the Chair suggested that the following areas be give consideration;

·         Improving dialogue with local cycling organisations;

·         An expansion in the programme of installation of  bike hangers;

·         Closer working between Transport Planning and Highways;

·         A more strategic approach, including establishing a long term route network;

·         Appointing a dedicated cycling officer;

·         Better integration with regeneration and planning processes;

·         Better promotion of cycling training;

·         Addressing cycle and bus pinch points and other safety issues;

·         Developing a Haringey Cycling Charter for schools;

·         Holding a regular cycling conference; and

·         Quicker removal of bike parts from cycle parking facilities.

Panel Members commented that the current cycling network needed improvement and that cycling needed to be made safe. Clarity was also needed on what sort of network was required.  In addition, there needed to be a high level of political will to support cycling initiatives.

AGREED:

That the future work plan for the Panel be noted.