Agenda and minutes

Environment and Community Safety Scrutiny Panel
Thursday, 10th December, 2020 6.30 pm

Venue: Microsoft Teams

Contact: Philip Slawther, Principal Committee Co-ordinator 

Note: Webcast: use the link on the agenda front sheet or paste the following into your browser: 

No. Item



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


There were no apologies for absence.


Items of Urgent Business

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).   




Declarations of interest

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


There were no Declarations of Interest.



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




Minutes pdf icon PDF 272 KB

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.


The Committee noted concerns about the late submission of response to actions from the previous meeting and the Chair agreed to pick this up with an email and to take up the chasing of actions going forwards. (Action: Chair).




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


Priorities for the Haringey Community Safety Partnership pdf icon PDF 295 KB

To invite comments from the Panel on current performance and priorities for the borough’s Community Safety Partnership. 

Additional documents:


*Clerk’s note – The Chair agreed to take agenda items 7, 8 & 9 together and then the Committee would ask questions at the end.


The Committee received a cover report and accompanying presentation which provided information about the Haringey Community Safety

priority setting process for 2021/22. This was similar to the 2020/21 process, and was to be finalised by March 2021. The presentation was introduced by Sandeep Broca, Intelligence Analysis Manager as set out in the agenda pack at pages 9-22.


As part of the Mayor's Police and Crime Plan, MOPAC were committed to setting local policing priorities across the capital in conjunction with borough leaders and police. Alongside the local priorities were London wide policing priorities on mandatory high-harm crimes: sexual violence, domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation, weapon-based crime and hate crime. Last year, data showed that both violence (Robbery; Non-Domestic Violence with Injury) and burglary were trends on the rise and should be considered actively by boroughs when setting local priorities. As a result, many Boroughs chose a violence measure and/or burglary as a priority. Alongside this, MOPAC ensured that anti-social behaviour remained a local borough priority across London.


The following points were raised in discussion of this item:

a.    The Committee welcomed the positive news in relation to decreasing crime trends around robberies and serious youth violence but noted concerns around a rise in hate crime and the possibility of this getting worse as Britain leaves the EU. The Panel sought reassurance around what plans were in place to tackle this and in particular to support the victims of crime.  In response, the Borough Commander advised that hate crimes were traditionally under reported and that she was pleased that this was now being reported to the Police. The Borough Commander advised that her aim was to ensure that every victim that wanted to pursue charges was supported in doing so and that cases were progressed in order to give the reassurance to the community that the issue was being taken seriously. However, the Panel was also advised that many victims did not want to pursue cases and that the criminal justice system could be daunting for victims and that she was also keen to explore other avenues such as restorative justice.

b.    In response to comments around restorative justice not always being applicable, the Borough Commander acknowledged this point and advised that ultimately, the pursuit of any crime was dependent upon the victim’s needs. It was the Police’s responsibility to investigate fully and to pursue every case where there was a will and desire from the victim to do so.

c.    It was also commented that some people perhaps didn’t know how to report hate crime and that there was a communications point around the Police ensuring that this information was communicated widely to our communities.

d.    In response to a supplementary question around whether there was a breakdown of hate crimes in the borough, officers advised that some of the data was not separated out,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.


Update on Haringey & Enfield BCU integration.

Verbal Update


The Borough Commander, Treena Fleming gave a verbal update to the Panel on the Police’s perspective on the previous presentation, current performance levels and how well the integration of the Haringey and Enfield BCU’s had gone to date. The key areas highlighted were:

·         The Borough Commander set out that she was very pleased with a number of the headline performance figures in the borough, including a 30% reduction in robberies which was excellent and was well above the London average.

·         Haringey was one of the boroughs with high levels of serious youth violence, so the fact that knife crime had reduced 27% was also an excellent result.

·         The merged Borough Command Unit (BCU) between Haringey and Enfield was implemented in April 2019 and the Borough Commander suggested that the performance figures provided an indication of the success of the merger.

·         The Borough Commander advised that robbery would continue to be a key priority for the BCU and that high visibility uniformed patrols were on patrol every day in robbery hotspot locations to try and reduce offending.

·         In April 2019, London went from 32 police boroughs down to 12. The Borough Commander advised that joining up resources with Enfield and Haringey had provided additional capacity to flex policing resources locally to respond to demand. There were a number of cross border problems, particularly around gangs and allowed the response teams to respond in a much more flexible way.

·         The North Area tasking team was the violence suppression unit which was responsible to dealing with violent crime related to drugs. This unit comprised of over 40 high visibility officers who did a lot of work around robberies other violent crime.

·         Traditionally, Haringey received a lot of central support from across London, however in light of the success of driving down violent crime this was no longer the case and the BCU no longer had priority status. This was seen as a significant milestone and it took around 18 months to achieve, involving the use of close joint working arrangements with partners.

·         The Public Protection Unit, is what was previously called the Safeguarding Unit. This was a specialist unit that linked together rape investigations with domestic violence and child abuse investigations to provide a more holistic response. Previously, some of these areas would have involved a centralised response and that this could have resulted in three different investigating officers.

·         There was a lot of cross working with Council partners around safeguarding. This included Operation Alliance, which was a joint piece of public protection work with the local authority and the custody suite at Wood Green to introduce four outreach workers. The outreach workers worked with every child that came into custody to provide a teachable moment and to then follow that up with visits to the child and their parents/guardian.

·         The Neighbourhoods Team was in place and each war had 2 dedicated officers and a PCSO. A youth independent advisory group had also been set up and the Committee was advised that police  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.


Update on Additional Police numbers in Haringey

Verbal Update.


In relation to the uplift programme of an additional 20k police officers promised by the Prime Minister, the Borough Commander advised that she was not able to give a Haringey specific figure. However the Metropolitan Police’s allocation of that 20K was an extra 1369 officers to be recruited in 2020/21 and an extra 2623 officers to be recruited in 2021/22.  It was noted that the 2020/21 allocation had been recruited with five months to spare.  The Borough Commander estimated that she currently had 70 newly appointed probationers in the BCU, which was unprecedented.  






Scrutiny of the 2021/22 Draft Budget / 5 Year Medium Term Financial Strategy (2021/22-2025/26) pdf icon PDF 388 KB

To consider and provide comments on the draft MTFS savings proposals for Place.

Additional documents:


The Panel received a report which provided an update on the Council’s 2021/22 Draft Budget / 5-year Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) 2021/22 – 2025/26 as well as the budget saving proposals within the Place priority. The report was introduced by Dee Ball, Finance Business Partner as set out in the agenda pack at pages 23-197. The Panel noted that the net budget expenditure within the Place priority was £31.43m. This was made up of total expenditure of £84.8m and £53.41m

in income. There was a projected overall variance for Place in 2020-21 of £13.713m, the driver of which was Covid. The most notable impacts of Covid on Place were a reduction in parking and highways income of £11.39m and a loss of £1.3m income from major events not taking place.


The following was noted in discussion of the report:

  1. The Panel noted concerns in relation to undelivered savings within the MTFS and questioned the extent to which areas of growth were being used to offset these. The Panel requested further clarity be provided on the exact figure for the current budget gap, as it was commented that there seemed to be a number of different figures referred to in the report.
  2. The Panel sought clarity around where in the Place budget the overall savings were coming from. The Panel also requested further information in relation to the budget allocated to help people who had lost their jobs due to Covid. In particular, the Panel were keen to know what impact this had and how many people would this affect. (Action: Dee Ball/Clerk).
  3. The Panel agreed to put a recommendation forward to Cabinet around the retention of the Neighbourhood Watch Coordinator and Parks Link Officer post. The Chair also agreed that he would raise this matter separately with the Leader due to the strength of feeling on this issue and concerns that the post holder was due to be made redundant within weeks.(Action: Chair).
  4. Cllr Mark Blake commented that the reduction in funding for the above post was a budget decision made two years ago with a reduction in the council’s contribution from 100%, to 50% this year and then to 25% for next year, so was not part of this year’s MTFS. Cllr Blake highlighted that any resolution would relate to a reversal of previous decisions and, from his perspective, he would like to see the Metropolitan Police making some kind of contribution.
  5. In relation to saving PL20/17 on garden waste service, the Panel sought assurances around how feasible it was to expect increased year on year growth in subscriptions from a smaller pool of potential customers. In response, the Cabinet Member set out that the savings were anticipated as a result of increased marketing of the service and from potentially increasing take up with a reduction in the cost.
  6. The Panel also sought assurance about saving PL20/15 and what this involved. In response, the Panel was advised that this saving related to rationalising the fleet of vehicles  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.


Work Programme pdf icon PDF 494 KB


The Panel requested that the work plan include a future item around scrutinising progress against the Cabinet pledge of £5.1m for active travel and the Cycling and Walking Action Plan. (Action: Clerk).




That the work plan was agreed.


New items of urgent business

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.





Dates of Future Meetings

4th March


Noted as 4th March 2021.