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 the meeting.  Members noted the information contained therein.

An apology for absence was received from Ian Sygrave (Haringey Association of Neighbourhood Watches).

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.

A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest or a prejudicial interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered:

(i) must disclose the interest at the start of the meeting or when the interest becomes apparent, and

(ii) may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must withdraw from the meeting room.

A member who discloses at a meeting a disclosable pecuniary interest which is not registered in the Register of Members’ Interests or the subject of a pending notification must notify the Monitoring Officer of the interest within 28 days of the disclosure.

Disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are defined at Paragraphs 5-7 and Appendix A of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

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 meetings of 8 and 21 December 2016.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meetings of 8 and 21 December be approved.

To question the Cabinet Member for Communities, Councillor Eugene Ayisi, on current developments arising from his portfolio.

The Panel noted that the Councillor Ayisi, the Cabinet Member for Communities had sent his apologies as he was unable to attend.

To receive an update on Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) including;

·         Progress with the implementation of the recommendations of the scrutiny review on the issue;

·         Progress with the implementation of the Iris Scheme by Haringey CCG;

·         Information regarding referrals.

Fiona Dwyer, Strategic Lead for Violence Against Women and Girls, provided the Panel with an update on;

·         Progress with the implementation of the recommendations of the scrutiny review on the issue, including the Iris Scheme by Haringey CCG: and

·         Details of patterns of referral.

A 10 year strategy had been agreed in November and there was now an action plan for the first three years to support it.   There were four key strategic priorities beneath this:

·         The development of a co-ordinated community response;

·         A community wide approach to prevention;

·         Support for victims/survivors; and

·         Holding perpetrators to account.

A number of specific services had been commissioned:

·         Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs);

·         The IRIS scheme which involved working with GP practices and was funded by the Clinical Commissioning Group;

·         Perpetrator support, including the YUVA project that was aimed at young people; and

·         Continued funding for the Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC). 

The Panel noted that a robust data dashboard was being developed as part of a three year project.  There was evidence of under reporting at the moment and the data that was available tended to be piecemeal in nature.  Funding was currently being sought for the project.

In answer to a question regarding how performance was measured, Ms Dwyer stated that there were a number of key performance indicators for commissioned services.  These included repeat victimisation, pre and post satisfaction levels and service outcomes, such as placement in safe accommodation and attendance on projects. 

The Panel noted that work was taking place with young people through youth facilities and sports clubs, including training.  In addition, social media was being used to communicate with them.  It was also noted that a lot of women were homeless due to domestic violence.  There were a lot of women who could be categorised as “hidden homeless” as they were, for example, staying with friends or relatives due to domestic violence.  A cross borough project aimed at providing assistance to women suffering from multiple deprivation, with additional complexities, had just begun its work.  The Police were key partners and actively involved in partnership activity to address Violence Against Women and Girls.  In particular, they co-chaired the MARAC.

Ms Dwyer reported that the three year phased action plans were aimed at ensuring that work remained relevant.  A communications strategy was being developed. 

In answer to a question regarding the low numbers of referrals from the Children and Young People’s Service, she stated that this had been identified as an issue and the service was looking at it.  There was a feeling though that if the Police had already made a referral, there was no need for others to also refer.  However, it had been clarified that this would not lead to duplication. 

She stated that funding was a continual issue as Violence Against Women and Girls cut across a number of services.  Current funding arrangements had nevertheless been agreed but additional external funding was also being applied for.  In addition, consideration was being given also being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To consider an overview of the sustainable transport schemes and initiatives the Council is proposing to deliver, including the following:

·         Reducing motor vehicle use and improving sustainable transport use in the borough; 

·         Achieving a more equitable balance between drivers, pedestrians and cyclists on our roads; 

·         Encouraging people to change their travel habits to help improve local air quality;

·         The expansion of car clubs; and

·         Supporting people to use more sustainable forms of transport.

Emma Williamson, Assistant Director for Planning, reported on the Council’s Sustainable Transport Programme as follows:

·         There was a need for developers to agree travel arrangements for new developments with the Council.  Some developments were designated as “car free”;

·         There had been a lot of investment in cycling across the borough.  Current plans included the development of Quietways, which were routes that used relatively quiet side streets.  In addition, the provision of cycle hangars was being extended and cycle training was provided free for residents and people who worked in the borough;

·         The Council was committed to expanding facilities for the charging of electric vehicles.  In addition, Haringey was part of the consortium of boroughs that was working to increase the take up of electric vehicles and expand the charging network through the Go Ultra Low City Scheme;

·         Haringey had been included as one of ten Low Emission Bus Zones; 

·         As part of the development of the Council’s new Transport Strategy, a Cycling and Walking Strategy would be developed; and

·         60 new bays were to be created as part of the expansion of car clubs. 

Panel Members asked what the procedure was for the removal of abandoned bicycle parts that were left on bike stands.  They felt that these were unsightly, used up valuable cycle parking pace and advertised theft.  Peter Boddy, Sustainable Transport Manager, reported that this was a waste issue and agreed to raise it with the Neighbourhood Action Team.   In response to a question regarding the design of cycle stands, he stated that the Council’s existing standard design was the “Sheffield”.  It was compact, widely used and supported by cycling groups.  However, consideration could be given to alternatives as part of discussion of the public realm.  The Panel noted that the “Camden” design of cycle stand had been developed as part of efforts to design out crime. 

Mr Boddy reported that it was acknowledged that the design of stand that had been used in the Turnpike Lane area was a poor choice. Haringey Cycling Campaign and the London Cycling Campaign had assumed the role as the Council’s critical friend and were able to provide feedback on designs.  A number of new stands were installed every year. 

In answer to a question regarding why the A1 in Highgate had not been included in the low emission bus zone area, Mr Boddy stated that he felt that this was probably due to cost issues.  The borough was glad to have two routes that were within the zones and would continue to lobby for areas within the borough to be included.  He agreed to find out further information regarding the status of the A1 in respect of this. 

The Panel drew attention to the plans of Source London to install 6000 charging points across London by 2020, which it was felt would equate to approximately 165 points in Haringey.  Ann Cunningham, Head of Traffic Management, stated that the Council did not currently have that level of detail on the plans but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To report on the Green Lane Area Transport Study, including Wightman Road.

Mr Boddy reported that a public meeting had taken place in March 2015 regarding traffic concerns.  These were wide ranging in nature and centred on the Wightman Road area but also overlapped onto other areas.  As a result of this, a project to consider the issues was developed and an external consultant was hired.

The study undertaken by the consultant was aimed at identifying measures to:

·         Improve the urban realm;

·         Rationalise traffic volume and routes;

·         Improve road safety for all road users;

·         Maintain or enhance bus service journey times and reliability;

·         Enhance pedestrian and cycle accessibility into and within the study area; and

·         Improve quality of life and health outcomes for local residents.

The consultant was appointed in February 2016.  A steering group of stakeholders, chaired by the relevant Cabinet Member, was set up to act as a “critical friend”.  The work undertaken by the consultant looked at a range of issues and these were developed into a series of options and ideas.  The aim was to develop recommendations for the short, medium and long term.  Funding of just over £1 million over three years was provided. 

Wightman Road had been closed to traffic from March to September 2016 due to the need to undertake works to the bridge that crossed it.  There were a series of traffic measures that had been made necessary as a result of this.  The popularity of these schemes had varied.  Some residents of Wightman Road had stated that they would like to road to be closed permanently.  Whilst the road was closed, improvement works had been undertaken by the Council to help address some of the traffic and safety related issues. 

Ms Cunningham reported that although there were weight restrictions in force, these did not apply to vehicles with access rights for such things as deliveries.   Mr Boddy commented that there was widespread recognition of the impact of the closure of Wightman Road.  Many residents of Wightman Road had enjoyed the closure but the impact on residents across the borough needed to be taken into account.    The implications of particular options had been included within the plans.

In answer to a question, Mr Boddy stated that traffic levels on Wightman Road were close to those on Green Lanes.  Whilst this was undesirable, it was also experienced in other locations in the borough.  It was necessary to look carefully at the consequences of measures as they could potentially make matters worse for other residents.  There were different benefits accruing from making Wightman Road one way north or south.  The preference was for the option that had the least impact on Green Lanes.

In answer to a question, Mr Boddy reported that there had been a 7% drop in overall levels of traffic when Wightman Road had been closed.  The majority of traffic had been displaced though.  There had been some cost limitations to the number of options that could be developed but the work was nevertheless the largest piece of traffic assessment work that had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To consider the future work plan for the Panel.

The Panel noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had proposed that a review be undertaken by the Panel on street sweeping and that this be scheduled to start shortly.  A scope and terms of reference for the proposed review were being put together.  It was likely that the work on this would begin early in the new Council year, with the aim of finishing the work by the summer recess. 

Panel Members were of the view that the proposed review on parks that was referred to in the current work plan should begin when the work on street sweeping was completed.  It was felt that the scope and terms of reference required further development so that the issues considered reflected local concerns.  The issues of funding and support were felt to be particularly relevant.  It was suggested that the Friends of Parks Forum be asked for their views on what they felt the key issues were.   It was noted that the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee were undertaking an inquiry on public parks and felt that their findings could help to inform the Panel’s review.

AGREED:

1.    The further information be sought on the progress of House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee’s inquiry into public parks; and

2.    That the Friends of Parks Forum be requested for their views on the issues that they feel the Panel should focus upon as part of its review on parks.