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 this 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 meeting of 21 December 2017.

In answer to a question, Zoe Robertson, Head of Commissioning and Client in the Commercial and Operations Service, reported that the changes to visitor parking permits were not yet in place and would be introduced in the next financial year.    She confirmed that the age for the concessionary rate would be 65, as previously recommended by the Panel.  

In answer to another question, she stated that there was a rolling programme of communication with residents on changes to waste and recycling.  This included a door knocking campaign by Veolia from February to promote the green waste service.  Work with schools to education children on waste and recycling was now to be undertaken on-line.  She agreed to circulate further details of this, including timescales, and planned communication with residents on the closure of Park View recycling centre to the Panel.

AGREED:

1.    That the minutes of the meeting of 21 December 2017 be approved; and

2.    That the Head of Commissioning and Client be requested to circulate further information to the Panel on the development of on-line education for schools on waste and recycling and planned communication with residents regarding the closure of Park View recycling centre.

An opportunity to question the Cabinet Member for Environment, Councillor

Pete Mitchell, on developments within his portfolio.

Councillor Peter Mitchell, the Cabinet Member for Environment, reported on key developments within his portfolio as follows:

·         He reported that safety measures were being looked at for Finsbury Park including CCTV, lighting, closing the gates at night and the use of park guards.  The Police were also undertaking a full assessment of safety issues in the park.  Action would be taken when this had been received, which was envisaged as being mid February.   The Police currently had an increased presence in the park and were focussing on drug dealing and anti-social behaviour.  The Council was providing additional support to rough sleepers in the park and repairing the perimeter fence.  A meeting had taken place in the park with a range of local stakeholders, including local MPs and the Friends group.  An access audit was also being undertaken by Councillor Hearn.  In addition, the park celebrated its 150^th Anniversary in 2019 and plans were being developed for this;

·         Income from events in Finsbury Park in 2017/18 had been £800,000.  £50,000 had been spent on fences and similar amounts on tennis, netball and volleyball courts.   Smart bins had also been purchased, which sent a message to operatives when they needed emptying.  In addition, £35,000 had been obtained from the Environmental Impact Levy.  Some of this had been distributed to a range of user groups through small grants of between £600 and £1100.   Signage, new disability bikes and distance markers for runners and walkers were amongst the other items that the money had been invested in;

·         As part of the Active Communities Programme, Brunswick Park had been given a grant of £174,000 to develop facilities.  It was anticipated that the work would be completed by April.  A grant had also been made for Stationers Park to develop the play area and there was the potential for grant funding to be obtained for a large project at Bull Lane Playing Fields;

·         As part of the Smarter Travel programme, active travel plans were being developed with schools.  In addition, secondary schools were now taking up cycle training.  The Sustainable Transport works plan for 2018-19 was also be finalised;

·         A new delivery model was being considered for highways and street lighting.  In addition, consideration was being given to changes to how allotments were managed, in consultation with the Allotments Forum;

·         There was currently a programme of tree planting, funded by a grant from the Mayor of London;

·         A litter reduction plan for parks was being developed;

·         An event on Air Quality was planned to take place towards the end of February to launch an Air Quality Strategy.  It was hoped to set up a steering group to take forward action following this;

·         Consultation on the proposed landlord licensing scheme was taking place.  In answer to a question, he stated that he was keen to promote a wide range of responses to it, particularly from tenants.

A Panel Member stated that repairs of an inferior quality had been undertaken to a path in Finsbury Park that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

To receive the latest information regarding performance in respect of street

cleansing, waste and recycling.

Ms Robertson reported that street cleansing was monitored in three tranches per year.  Keep Britain Tidy (KBT) had been undertaking monitoring but the Council now had its own team that was now doing this.  It appeared that KBT had applied stricter standards as there had been a higher number of borderline fails than in the past.  Tranche 2 results had now been received and these could be shared with the Panel shortly.  Whilst fly tipping continued to be an issue, there had been a reduction since October.  However, levels tended to fluctuate.  Fly tips continued to be collected within the times specified in the contract with Veolia.  The majority consisted of domestic black bags and items rather than originating from commercial sources.  There was an action plan to address the issue and this would include addressing hotspots.  Panel Members commented that Houses in Multiple Occupation tended to be the worst offenders.  It was hoped that the landlord licensing scheme would help address this.

Ms. Robertson stated that levels of recycling had plateaued.  They had been affected significantly by a change in the law but what was now being collected was of much higher quality.  Work was taking place with Veolia to promote greater levels of recycling.  In answer to a question, she stated that it was not anticipated that the ban by China on plastic waste imports would have a major impact on the Council’s collections.  She also reported that the pilot scheme for on the spot fines for littering with Kingdom had ended.  The scheme was being reviewed and recommendations would be made in response to this.

In answer to a question, she stated that the drop off in performance in recycling correlated strongly with the changes in the law.  Improvement was dependent to a great extent on bringing about behaviour change.  The issue was being looked at continually with Veolia.  In respect of detritus, Members had stated that the current assessment of performance was more in line with their experience.  However, monitoring was not perfect and was dependent on when streets were inspected.   Consistency enabled trends to be observed more easily.  The service was particularly interested in knowing how long it took for streets to deteriorate.  Work was taking place with Veolia on a range of matters and a report back would be made in due course.

To receive an overview of the outcomes from the Team Noel Park Pilot.

Ms Robertson reported on the outcome of the Team Noel Park pilot.  This had been completed a year ago.  It had been designed to be a prototype of how the Council could work together with local communities.  The key outcomes that were aimed for were to:

•          Make Noel Park is a cleaner and safer place;

•          Increase resident satisfaction with Noel Park as a place to live, work/trade and visit; and

•          Increase the level of pride in the area amongst residents.

The aim was also to strengthen the community and it was hoped to put the Council in a position where it could co-commission services with residents.  £100,000 had been allocated to the project.

The project had not delivered on the key outcomes that were intended but valuable learning had nevertheless been obtained from it.  It was now recognised that building relationships took time and ward Councillors were a key link.  A toolkit for Members on community engagement was now being developed.  It was also found that behaviour change required a big shift in norms and could not be implemented quickly.  In addition, developing joined up working was labour intensive and required a change of culture. 

In answer to a question, Ms Robertson stated that Veolia undertook an annual survey.  This had recently been done and the results would be available in February.  In answer to another question, she stated that it was hard to say whether the project had delivered value for money.  There was not the money to replicate the exercise though.  There had nevertheless been some good outcomes.  Some of the learning had been implemented including a more joined up approach to fly tipping and the development of ward walks.   She agreed to circulate details to the Panel of a survey that had been undertaken in the area on rubbish in resident’s gardens as part of the pilot project.

Panel Members expressed regret at the demise of the Council’s area forums as it was felt these were an effective way of engaging with the local community.  Ms Robertson commented that there was a wider question for the Council to consider regarding how it engaged with residents.

AGREED:

That further information be circulated to the Panel on the survey that had been undertaken as part of the pilot project on the prevalence of rubbish in the gardens of residents.

To receive an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the Panel’s review on cycling.

Emma Williamson, Assistant Director of Planning, reported on progress with the implementation of the recommendations of the Panel’s review on cycling.  17 out of the 20 recommendations had been agreed.  Most would be incorporated into the Council’s walking and cycling action plan.  Consultation was take place on this during the summer with the aim of implementing plans from 2019. 

The Panel noted that a 12 month trial of dockless cycle hire in the borough was to be undertaken.  The Council wished to have a guarantee within the contract that it would not be liable for any costs should the provider cease operating.  Discussions were currently taking place with Mobike with the aim of launching the pilot scheme in the summer.  Panel Members commented that an independent review on the rideability of cycles provided by Mobike had not been positive and felt that this might impact on the level of take up by residents.  Neil Goldberg, Transport Planner, reported that other providers did not meet the Council’s criteria.  It was likely that the Mobike cycles that were used in Haringey would be different to first generation models used elsewhere.  Mobike met all of Transport for London’s practice guidelines.  He was nevertheless happy to feed the Panel’s comments back.

Mr Goldberg reported that Liveable Neighbourhood funding had been obtained for a scheme in Crouch End that would improve cycling and walking conditions.  In addition, the Mayor’s Office had announced plans to develop a cycle route from Tottenham Hale to Camden.  Moves to reduce space for cars were contentious but could be looked at as part of the further development of proposals for Crouch End. 

Panel Members acknowledged that not everyone could cycle and that developing the cycle infrastructure could mean that car users had less road space.  However, they felt that a bold approach was required.  The needs of pedestrians should not be overlooked though.  Attention was drawn to an island bus stop on cycle route CS1 which required people getting off buses to walk across the cycle lane.  Mr Goldberg stated that the route was being reviewed and details of the outcome could be circulated to Panel Members in due course.

In answer to a question, Ms Williamson reported that there was some funding available for bike hangars but it had proven difficult to keep up with demand. 

AGREED:

That details of the outcome of the review of CS1 be circulated to Panel Members.

To report on the development of the Transport Strategy for the borough.

Ms Williamson reported that on the Council’s draft Transport Strategy, which had recently been consulted on.  It was intended that there would be actions plans beneath the overall strategy, including a specific one for walking and cycling.  There had been 50 responses to the consultation on the strategy.  The majority of these had been supportive and/or wanted targets to be included.  Few changes were proposed but reference to motorcycles would be added in response to comments made as part of the consultation.

The Panel felt that it was important that the strategy was consistent with that of the Mayor and that it would have an important role as a lobbying tool.  It was noted that, whilst much was dependent on Transport for London, a lot could be delivered locally.  Mr Goldberg reported that the strategy had been welcomed by Transport for London and was in line with the Mayor’s transport strategy.  He stated that Local Implementation Plan (LIP) funding of £1.9 million had been obtained for 2018-19.  It was agreed that a breakdown of how LIP funding for 2018-19 was to be spent would be circulated to Panel Members.

AGREED:

That the Assistant Director of Planning be requested to provide a breakdown of how LIP funding for 2018-19 will be spent be circulated to the Panel.

It was noted that the only item on the agenda so far for the Panel meeting on 13 March was Cabinet Member Questions for the Cabinet Member for Communities.  It was proposed that, in addition, an update on proposals to implement recommendations from the Panel’s review on street sweeping also be considered.

AGREED:

That, subject to the above addition, the work plan for the Panel be approved.