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 in respect of filming at the meeting and Members noted the information contained therein.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Barbara Blake.

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.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of 30 June 2016 be approved.

An opportunity to question the Cabinet Member for Communities, Councillor

Eugene Ayisi, on developments within his portfolio.

Councillor Eugene Ayisi outlined the key areas within his portfolio as follows.  He commented that many of the diverse areas covered within hi portfolio were loosing funding so partnership working was becoming ever more crucial:

·         Work in respect of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) was focussed on developing a community response.  He noted that 80% of social care cases covered by the Children and Young People’s Service had an element of it within them.  Whilst issues relating VAWG were not race specific, some communities needed to develop a better understanding of the issues relating to it.  Haringey currently had the 5^th highest rate within London.  Action was being taken to increase levels of reporting though and, as a result of this, it was likely that Haringey’s position would go up but this would nevertheless be a positive outcome.  A strategy had been developed and consultation was taking place on it.  A week of activities to highlight VAWG was planned for November and discussions on the arrangements for this were in progress;

·         There had been issues relating to anti social behaviour and crime in the Turnpike Lane area and a plan of action to address them was currently being developed;

·         Action to facilitate earlier intervention to prevent young people coming into contact with the youth justice system was a priority and work with schools would play a key role within this.  The outcome of Charlie Taylor review into the Youth Justice System was likely to have a significant effect.  Demands on services that worked with young people were high but resources were limited; 

·         Increasing confidence in the Police was another priority.  Levels within Haringey had not been good and that was especially true within the black community.  This was reflected nationally with concerns regarding stop and search and the Black Live Matters campaign; and

·         The Bridge Renewal Trust were likely to play an important role in developing the voluntary sector in Haringey and would hopefully assist in filling some of the voids that currently existed.  There were often several organisations doing similar things and the Trust could also assist with bringing some of them together.

The Cabinet Member answered questions from the Panel, with assistance from Helen Millichap, the Police Borough Commander, who was also in attendance.

In respect of Stop and Search, Ms Millichap reported that searches had previously been high.  The legislation that had been used by Police at the time meant that people could be stopped without separate grounds for suspicion.  However, its use was felt to be damaging and there was evidence of searches being used disproportionately against members of some communities.  Officers were now using alternative legislation that only allowed them to stop people if there was specific reason to be suspicious, especially in respect of possession of weapons or dugs.  The focus was most strongly on weapons and she believed that this was where it should be used predominantly.   They were aware that, if communities perceived stop search to be unfair or unjustified,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

To consider performance statistics and priorities for the borough’s Community Safety Partnership, including MOPAC priority areas, hate crime, and emerging issues.

Helen Millichap, the new Police Borough Commander for Haringey, introduced herself to the Panel and outlined her priorities.  In developing these, she had collected the views of a range of people and their views had closely reflected her own.  There were four main areas that needed prioritising;

·         Putting victims first.  The care provided to them needed to be excellent and that was especially true of vulnerable people and children, including those affected by domestic violence;

·         Building strong communities.  This involved engaging and responding effectively to community concerns.  An example of this was that the issues in respect of Ducketts Common.  However, it was acknowledged that there were some legacy issues, not all of which were the responsibility of the borough;

·         Dealing with offenders promptly and bringing them to justice; and

·         Building strong partnerships.  This was aimed at helping to stop crime starting in the first place.  If crime was reduced, it would be possible for the Police to do more in the community.  In addition, she wanted to develop better coordination of work across community safety and to also include safeguarding and the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB).

She felt that the Police currently provided a good offer in schools but she wanted to work more closely with primary schools so that Police officers become a normal presence. She wished to ensure that there was a standardised service for all schools, with a named officer for each.

The Panel received an overview of current performance issues in respect of crime and community safety;

·         There had been an increase in hate crime and this reflected the experience elsewhere in London, although the increase in Haringey had been higher than the percentage increase for London.  It was possible that this was due to increased levels of confidence leading to higher levels of reporting;

·         Violence Against Women and Girls had gone up by 18% compared with a London level of 4%.  75% of incidents took place in the east of the borough.  Non domestic violence with injury had gone up by 7.2%, which was broadly similar to the rate across London.  There was a link to the night time economy, including retail;

·         Knife enabled crime had gone up by 15.2% compared to 4.3% across London. The figures included instances where victims thought the perpetrator might have a knife as well as instances where one was actually seen.  The majority of knife injury victims were young but some adults had also been affected.  There had been an increase of 15% in the number of victims, compared to 4.2% percent for London.  The increase equated to an additional 12 victims.  The hot spots for knife crime had shifted following targeted action in key locations;

·         There had been an increase of 5% in victims of serious youth violence.  83 of these were gang related.  There had been cross border gang issues but these now appeared to be diminishing in number following targeted partnership work.  Statistics for gun related incidents included instances where firearms might not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

To receive an update on financial performance relating to Corporate Plan Priority 3.

Steve McDonnell, the Assistant Director for Commercial and Operations, reported that there was currently an overspend of just over £1 million relating to services within Priority 3 of the Corporate Plan.  This was due to a number of factors;

·         Action to deliver new ways of parking enforcement was not on track.  Discussions were currently taking place regarding the feasibility of a shared service for traffic management;

·         Savings from the use of LED street lighting had not been fully achieved.  This had been due to the fact that the level of them had been overstated and, in addition, energy prices had gone up;

·         There had been a projected £72,000 overspend in the Neighbourhood Action Team but the position had recently improved;

·         There was a significant overspend in Asset Management.  Planned savings from selling corporate property had not been achieved and would need to be re-profiled.  A delivery vehicle was being developed to take this forward;

·         Other areas, such as Business Support, had underspent. 

In answer to a question, Mr McDonnell reported that consideration was being given to improving the efficiency of parking enforcement.  This had involved looking at the practice adopted by other London boroughs.  In addition, consideration was also being given to having a shared service.  He noted that there were still areas within the borough where there was unrestricted parking.  It was likely that the use of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) would increase. 

In terms of the overspend in respect of street lighting, he stated that the energy savings from introducing LED lighting had been overestimated as well

the speed in which it could be installed.  The savings had therefore been £60-70k rather than the £200k that had been anticipated.  In addition, energy prices had also gone up.  However, the business case for their use remained strong although it needed to be re-profiled.  In terms of asset management and corporate landlord buildings, savings from this would be achieved at some point and the development vehicle would assist in the process.  The Panel noted that income from Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) was required to be re-invested in the service.

To report on progress following the Scrutiny Review on the 20 MPH Speed Limit and the implementation of the Council’s scheme, including enforcement.

Frederico Fernandes, the Interim Parking Schemes Manager, reported that a borough wide consultation had been undertaken regarding the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit.  The feedback was that residential roads, roads near schools and town centres should be included.  The scheme went live in February this year.  A survey of traffic speeds was taken just before implementation.  Various activities were undertaken to promote the scheme.  Enforcement had taken place on roads where problems had occurred.  There had been 2 arrests and 227 engagements so far.  In addition, Community Road Watch had been introduced as a joint initiative between Transport for London and the Police.  There were now 38 volunteers providing enforcement in a number of different streets.   A further survey of traffic speeds was currently being undertaken.

In answer to a question, the Panel noted that there was also a 20 mph speed limit in operation in Islington.  “Hard” measures such as speed humps, could be introduced to help reduce traffic speeds if necessary.  There was a modest budget for publicity.

AGREED:

That traffic speed data arising from the current survey on the impact of the introduction be shared with the Panel.

To consider the future work plan for the Panel.

In respect of review projects for the year, it was noted that the intention that they would take place in the order specified in the work plan, as agreed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  The Panel was nevertheless able to change the order if it so wished, subject to the concurrence of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.