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 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).   

There were no items of urgent business.

Cllr Culverwell declared an interest in relation to the deputation as well as agenda item 10 as he is the vice-chair of the Friends of Finsbury Park.

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

The Panel received a deputation on behalf of the Friends of Finsbury Park regarding the recent major events that took place in Finsbury Park during September and the resultant damage that had occurred.  The lead deputee was Clive Carter and the other members of the deputation party were Barbara Baughan and Martin Ball. Concerns were raised by the deputation party about the extent of the damage to the bandstand field, which was categorised as severe. It was suggested that the damage was not the kind which could be straightforwardly repaired and could cause  long-term damage on the park.

Clive Carter advised the Panel that the Friends group represented residents across the three adjoining boroughs and not just Haringey. It was suggested that residents across the three Boroughs had enough of major events in Finsbury Park and that the Council was exploiting a valued community utility for short term financial gain, generating significant ill will as a result. It was contended that the park was being ruined as a result of the damage caused. The deputation party set out that the noise levels were excessive during the recent major events, particularly in relation to bass frequencies, and that the music could be heard three kilometres away. It was suggested that the Council, in continuing to hold large scale major events, was ignoring the concerns of parks users and showing contempt for local residents.

In response to concerns raised about the events’ adherence to licensing conditions, the deputation party were advised that any concerns around licensing conditions and adherence thereof, would have to be raised separately through the formal licensing process and were not within the purview of the Scrutiny Panel.

The Chair thanked the deputation party for their contribution.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting on 3^rd October. 

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of 3^rd October were agreed as a correct record.  

The Panel received a covering report and accompanying set of slides which provided an overview of Haringey’s performance in relation to key crime performance statistics. The report and accompanying presentation were introduced by Sandeep Broca, Intelligence Analyst, as set out in the agenda pack at pages 9 to 21.  The Borough Commander, Treena Fleming was also present to discuss the Community Safety Partnerships’ priorities for the current year.  The following key points from the presentation were noted:

• Overall recorded crime in Haringey had increased by 2.7% in the 12 months to October 2019, which was better than the London wide average increase of 8.3%. The main hotspots were located around Wood Green High Road and around the A10 corridor, from Bruce Grove to Seven Sisters. Wandsworth was the only London Borough to see a small reduction in overall crime in the 12 month period to October 2019.

• Overall sexual offences in Haringey decreased by 10.6% in the 12 months to October 2019, compared to a London wide average reduction of 2.1%.

• Non-domestic violence with injury offences had decreased in Haringey by 9.8%, compared to a London-wide increase of 0.8%.

• Personal robbery increased in Haringey, by 26%. Almost 2,200 offences a year took place. London wide offending had also worsened, experiencing an increase of 14%. North London in particular had seen large increases in robbery.

• The volume of overall knife injuries had reduced by 4.9% in Haringey, compared to an 11.7% London-wide reduction.

• Lethal barrelled firearm discharges in Haringey had decreased year on year by 18.4%. London had decreased by 15% over this same period. This was a notable improvement from mid-2018, during which significantly higher volumes of firearms discharges occurred. However, Haringey still had the second highest number of incidents in London. Firearm related incidents mostly occurred in the east of the borough, and showed some correlation with known gang linked areas. Offences also demonstrated some geographical clustering.

The Mayor’s Police and Crime Plan (2017-2021) outlined key priorities: Sexual Violence; Domestic Abuse; Child Sexual Exploitation; Weapon-Based Crime; Hate Crime; Anti-Social Behaviour. In addition, Robbery and Non-Domestic Violence with Injury were agreed as local priorities.

The following was noted in discussion of this agenda item:

a.    The AD Stronger Communities provided an update to the Panel around the community conversation programme, which aimed to improve public confidence in the police and partners through adopting a proactive partnership approach to resident engagement. The Borough Commander emphasised the role of ward officers in getting out into the community and building up contacts and networks.

b.    In response to a question, the Panel was advised that knife crime was a subsidiary of a wider category of weapon based crimes, which was designated as a mandatory high harm crime for all London Boroughs. Knife crime, by contrast, was a local priority in Haringey.

c.    The Panel sought assurances around systems for anonymously reporting crime and requested an update on the safe haven scheme. In response, officers advised that Haringey Community Gold were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Verbal update.

The Panel received a verbal update from Treena Fleming, the Borough Commander on the merging of Haringey and Enfield Borough Command Units (BCUs). The following key points were noted:

a.    The Panel noted that the new Borough Commander had been in post since April and that, overall, the merger had gone well. It was reported that following an initial bedding in period, performance had stabilised and 80% of I grades were responded to within target times and 75% of S grades within the target time.

b.    The Borough Commander advised that her focus was on ensuring a high quality of service and on what the officers did when they arrived at the scene of crime rather than solely on how quickly they got there.

c.    Response teams were responsible for carrying out low-level investigations and there was a continuity of the investigating officer throughout the whole process. The Borough Commander advised that she was looking to upskill her officers to ensure that all of her officers were investigative.

d.    The Borough Commander welcomed the fact that sexual offences and child abuse had been assigned back to front line policing and that with the safeguarding teams in place, this allowed the police to offer a much more holistic service, with one point of contact and the ability to offer wrap around services to victims of those crimes. There police had also developed a much  more joined-up risk assessment process.

e.    The Panel were advised that the CID team was in place and that it was their responsibility to handle complex crime.

f.     The merging of neighbourhood teams was going well and there were only a couple of vacancies, including those in the schools team. The Panel noted that there was significant best practice learning taking place in the neighbourhoods model and that the shift pattern for officers in neighbourhoods teams had been changed to ensure deployment between 4pm and midnight, as well as at key hotspot locations, in response to increased levels of criminal activity during those times.

g.    Overall, the Borough Commander advised, the merged BCU offered a great deal of autonomy and flexibility in dealing with crime across both boroughs.

The following was noted in response to the discussion of this item:

a.    In response to a question around how many new police officers were scheduled to come to Haringey and Enfield, the Borough Commander advised that the government had announced around 1300 new officers for the Metropolitan and that she was currently seeing around 10-15 new recruits coming through a month, along with some direct entry detectives.

b.    In response to a question around how well the relationship worked between the police and the Council, the Borough Commander advised that there were good relationships being developed with individual colleagues and that overall the relationship worked well. The Borough Commander advised that Sandeep was co-located with the Police and that she held regular meetings with the Chief Executive. Furthermore, her five Superintendents worked closely with the relevant directors within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Verbal update

The Panel received a verbal update from the Cabinet Member for Communities and Equalities on his portfolio area. The following was noted in discussion of this agenda item:

a.    The Panel noted that the Council had signed a three-year £1.5m grant agreement with MOPAC which provided the core funding for community safety work; such as violent offender management, gangs work and supporting victims of domestic violence. The Cabinet Member advised that Haringey Community Gold had been live for around six months and had funded 9 projects. The early outcomes were characterised as being overwhelmingly positive.

b.    In response to a question around what the Cabinet Member’s political priorities for his portfolio were, he advised that one of the his key areas was around ensuring that there were additional resources for youth engagement. The Cabinet Member also advised that he was working on securing the next bid for Haringey Community Gold. Furthermore, he was reviewing invest to save proposals around violence reduction with officers as well as work to review the community conversation agenda and how best to work closely with voluntary sector partners.

c.    The Panel sought reassurance around engagement and early intervention and requested further information in relation to how the money was being spent and the outcomes that were sought. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that there was a rigorous process of engagement and reporting back to the Mayor’s Office on how the money was being spent as part of Haringey Community Gold, along with regular joint meetings with officers and partners. The Panel requested further information on the activities and outcomes being undertaken as part of Community Gold. Action: (Cllr Blake/Eubert).

d.    The Panel also sought assurances around Community Conversations and raised concerns about it being led by voluntary organisations who were seeking funding through the project, rather than individual local residents. The Panel requested that the Cabinet Member give some further thought to how these groups were selected and what the selection criteria was for choosing them. (Action: Cllr Blake). In response, Officers advised that that as part of the funding for Community Gold, the Council went out into the community and invited bids for funding, so this was to some extent a self-selection process. Officers reassured the Panel that those groups selected had regular engagement with the GLA as part of the process.

e.    The Panel requested some further information around the action plan, and the individual actions contained therein, that sat underneath the Youth at Risk Strategy. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that there would be a Member Briefing session on serious youth violence and the Youth at Risk Strategy in January that would update Members in detail.

RESOLVED

     I.        That the update was noted.

The Panel received an briefing paper on the Slammin’ events 2019 that took place in Finsbury Park and the rectification works that had been undertaken following these events. Sarah Jones, Events and Partnerships Manager introduced the report as set out in the agenda pack at pages 23 to 26. The following was noted in discussion of the report:

a.    The Panel sought assurances around what could be done to restrict bass levels from future events. In response officers acknowledged that there was increase in complaints and that the noise had spread over a further distance than usual due to the prevailing weather conditions. Officers advised that specific conditions were set within the Licence and that there were currently three licences issued to promoters, with each one independent of each other and specific to the relevant licence holder. The conditions referred to in the deputation were for Live Nation events and that these were not transferable to the other premises licences.

b.    In response to concerns about the advertised complaints telephone number being difficult to get hold of and closing immediately after the event, officers acknowledged these concerns and advised that the volume of complaints was well above what was anticipated.The Panel noted that this was the fifth year of the event and it usually generated around 15 complaints, so one telephone line was usually suitable. However, 38 complaints were received in the afternoon this time, along with significant number of complaints to the Parks team in the days following the event. Officers agreed to reconsider how to best ensure the complaints line was organised for future events. (Action: Sarah Jones).

c.    The Panel sought assurances around whether in light of the complaints generated, holding Major Events was in the Council’s interests. In response, officers advised that the revenue generated was essential to the upkeep and maintence of Finsbury Park, following significant budget reductions since 2010. Officers also advised that a lot of residents enjoyed the events and that they were seeking to ensure that there was a balance so that the number of events was kept relatively low whilst also providing a vital income stream.

d.    The Panel questioned whether the level of income being generated was enough to justify the events. In response, officers advised that the schedule of events for next year balanced the concerns of residents against ensuring enough revenue to support the park. It was anticipated that the revenue from next years’ events would allow the Council to make some small infrastructure improvements to Finsbury Park. The Cabinet Member for Climate Change and Sustainability advised that, in her view, the events were justifiable in order to ensure the ongoing viability and upkeep of the park.

e.    The Panel queried whether the events could be held every second year instead. Officers advised that in the case of Wireless, that this was an annual event and that the organisers would likely go elsewhere if the Council only permitted them to have it every other year. This would create  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Verbal update.

The Panel received a verbal update on the Crouch End Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme from Peter Watson, Programme Manager Highway Major Events. The following was noted:

·         The Project commenced last November and included significant consultation work and workshops with both residents and Members.

·         The key aim was to engender modal shift away from cars towards using public transport. In order to do this vehicular traffic was restricted and a bus gate in operation on Priory Lane.

·         As part of the justification for the trail scheme it was noted that 80% of the traffic going through Crouch End did not stop there and instead vehicles were using Crouch End as a commuting artery.

·         Part of the purpose of the trial was to iron out any issues that arose around communications. The Panel were advised that following the two-week trail, around 3000 comments were received through the website. At the time of the meeting, officers had responded to 800.

·         The Project Board, at its most recent meeting, had agreed to undertake additional communications work and officers would be going out to the public with a consultation exercise on the next stage of the scheme. Officers advised that there were no plans at present to install another bus gate in the second stage of the project.

·         In response to a request for clarification on timescales for the communication exercise, officers advised that they were constrained by the recent announcement of a General Election and anticipated this being concluded by the end of January. In addition, there was also a pre-election period scheduled for 23^rd March for the Mayoral election and it was noted that this would also determine when the second trial period could take place.

The following points were raised in discussion of this agenda item:

a.    The Panel sought assurances about whether any measurement of air quality was taken before and after the trial period to assess its impact. In response, officers advised that 26 sites were monitored across Crouch End over a twelve month period to develop a baseline from which to measure any improvements to air quality.

b.    In response to a question about the level of concerns raised by residents following the trial period and whether the Council was considering cancelling the project, officers acknowledged the concerns raised by residents and suggested that the scheme was always likely to cause some upset because of the impact on traffic flow. Officers also highlighted that Haringey was the only borough awarded funding who were able to complete the whole two week trial period. Both Newham and Tower Hamlets had to cancel similar schemes due to concerns over safety. Enfield and Waltham Forest undertook borough-wide closures, whereas Haringey’s was targeted to a specific location.

c.    Officers advised that they would be examining all of the feedback to examine where improvements could be made and how some of the biggest concerns might be mitigated. Officers suggested that one of the key learning points was around residents feeling that they had not been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

RESOLVED

That the Members noted the work programme update and approved any changes therein.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

17^th December

It was noted that the next meeting date was 17^th December 2019.