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 Diakides and Cllr Dunstall.

Cllr Ali attended as a substitute.

Apologies were also received from Cllr Jogee.

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 on 11 September.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting on 11^th September were agreed as a correct record.

The Panel received a short explanation on the Haringey Crime Performance and Priorities Overview 2023. Haringey has a signed agreement with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) to contribute to tackling the Mayor’s priority crimes.

The following points were noted in the discussion:

• Since 2022, Haringey Council agreed to a three-year plan agreed with MOPAC. Two main key priorities included non-domestic violence/injury and robbery. Also focused on other high harm crimes such as violence, vulnerability and exploitation such as sexual violence, domestic abuse, women safety, child sexual exploitation, weapon-based crime, hate crime and anti-social behaviour with the aim to eradicate as far as possible.
• The panel was taken through the performance within the borough for several different crime-types up to September 2023. This can be seen both for the last 12 months and against the three-year baseline. Figures are highlighted in red indicating an increase and green which shows a reduction in crimes.
• The Panel noted that it was positive to see Haringey outperformed other the London change for most crime types and overall recorded crime (TNO) in the last 12 months, however TNO’s has seen a 3% increase for the borough this year.
• Residential burglary has seen a 6% year on year decrease in comparison with the 1% modest reduction for London overall. Increases such as 14% increase in robbery compares favourably with the 18% overall London increase.
• Around 33,000 crimes per year in Haringey which can be understood in context with the borough population size. Approx. 1 million crimes per year in London, if this was averaged across all the London council’s the figure in Haringey is around that mark.
• Ward level crime data shows that Noel Park followed by Northumberland Park, South Tottenham and Haringey ward have the highest volumes of crime, this is unsurprising. The east of the borough except for the central part, tend to have a higher volume compared with the west.
• MOPAC carried out a quarterly London wide survey around public confidence in policing. 44% of people do believe that the police do a good job in Harringay, and that's slightly below the London average, which is 48%, possibly driven by perceptions.
• Haringey’s Community Safety strategy, centring around crime and anti-social behaviour, is currently being refreshed and will run from 2023-2027. Large consultations as part of this include working with community groups, residents, businesses and coordinating partnership actions.
• The Serious Violence Duty (SVD) was introduced by government through the Police, Crime,

Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and commenced on 31st January 2023. The requirements for the community safety partnership include to undertake evidence-based analysis on causes, develop strategic needs assessments and implement a strategy.

• Key violence generators and attractors in the borough include transport hubs (train, tube and buses), parks and open spaces and busy high street locations.
• Robbery and Non-Domestic VWI are also key crime types which involve young people as

both victims and perpetrators.

• Overall, the volume of violence in Haringey has remained relatively stable in the short and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 241.

To follow

The Panel received a presentation from the Metropolitan Police, which provided an update on the Police’s response to the Baroness Casey Review and the work that was being done to reform the Metropolitan Police. The presentation was introduced by Detective Chief Superintendent Caroline Haines, the Borough Commander for the North Area BCU. Also present for this item was Superintendent Rhona Hunt, the lead for Neighbourhood Policing in the North Area BCU. The presentation was set out in the additional report pack at pages 1-16. The following arose during the discussion of this agenda item:

1. The Panel sought assurances around the degree of autonomy that the Borough Commander possessed and the ability she had to take decisions that differed from other boroughs who may have very different challenges. In response, the Borough Commander advised that this was something that was picked up in the Casey Review and that there was a level of autonomy from the central command within the Met. An example given was around a piece of work undertaken with the Leader and Chief Executive of Haringey that was agreed centrally, to change the model of neighbourhood policing in Haringey and also change the number/allocation of officers. The Borough Commander advised the Panel that whilst the number of officers available was finite, she had the authority to allocate them as she saw fit.
2. In regard to mental health callouts and officers having to spend long periods in hospitals waiting for cases to be triaged, the Panel raised concerns that changes in this area might be going too quickly and that this needed to be adequately communicated to partners in the health and care sector.
3. The Panel requested data on attrition rates that was broken down by gender, sexual orientation and ethnic background. The Borough Commander advised that she would circulate this information to Members, outside of the meeting, via email. (Action: Borough Commander).
4. The Panel sought clarification as to whether Haringey had a higher number of officers who were subject to professional standards reviews. In response, the Panel was advised that the number of officers in Haringey was broadly in line with other boroughs, but that Haringey did have a higher number of officers who were on restricted duties.
5. In response to comments about a lot of police officers being from out of London and perhaps not understanding some of the communities they served, police colleagues set out that there were a lot of officers from Haringey and North London. A number of officers did not want to police the neighbourhood they grew up in, but that there were a lot of officers in Haringey from neighbouring boroughs.
6. The Panel sought clarification about the extent to which abstractions of neighbourhood officers were being limited, given a number of high profile demonstrations in central London in recent weeks. In response, police colleagues advised that there had inevitably been some impact on neighbourhood officers and that it was hoped that processes brought in to limit the impact of abstractions would start  ...  view the full minutes text for item 242.

The Panel set out that they would like a future agenda item around ASB, which included looking into how joined up the Council’s response is around  ASB and housing ASB. Panel Members also requested some ward level data around ASB, if it was available, and also how well the CCTV control room and other council services linked up.

The Panel requested an update on the proposed Dockless Bike rollout, depending on whether there was a substantive update available for the February meeting.

The Panel also requested a follow-up report to a future meeting on fly-tipping/the fly-tipping strategy.

RESOLVED

That the Panel noted its work plan.

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

N/A

·         19th December

·         27th February

·         19th December

·         27th February