Agenda and draft 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’.

Cllr Adamou, Cllr Ali and Cllr Culverwell extended apologies for absence.

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).   

The finalised draft scope of a proposed Scrutiny Review on the position of cyclists in the road user hierarchy was circulated to the Panel for more in-depth discussion at Item 11.

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.

None.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

It was raised that there was an amendment to a statement within the minutes  ‘the Council’s Vision Zero’. The Vision Zero campaign was in fact a Transport for London initiative. ACTION (Scrutiny Officer).

The Borough Commander introduced the report.

The Panel learned that:

-       There had been successes in reduction in crime in the Borough– especially in the violent crimes and knife crime category. However there had been significant increases in the category of ’crimes against the person’.

-       The Met Police had formally exited ‘special measures’ brought about last year.

-       There had been a focus on strengthening public protection in policing. This included child abuse, exploitation, violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and more. 

-       There had been growth in terms of posts and  investment in neighbourhood crime fighting.

-       The Police had engaged with the public to help prioritise issues of impact on a ward-by-ward basis and in line with their harm profile.

-       The strengthening of public trust was continuing however the Borough Commander emphasised that the speed of the roll out of projects  was dependent on funding. The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and Home Office funding had been reduced. 

-       ‘Clear Hold Build’ was seen by many  as a success story  in the  Finsbury Park and Northumberland Park areas. They had delivered a reduction in crime.

-       Following the Baroness Casey report on the Met Police , there had been significant work done on the internal culture of the police force – especially with regards to delivering on higher standards and ensuring that only the right officers were in place in the Force.

A Youth Panel Member Representative asked further about the focus on highly gentrified areas such as Finsbury Park and Tottenham Hale. She enquired as to why gentrified areas also had high levels of violence. The Borough Commander highlighted that the crime rates had reduced due to enforcement action, however specific reasons for violence may include criminal access to transport hubs, and geography . It was emphasised that work was being done in partnership with the British Transport Police and TfL to target certain individuals. The Detective Superintendent stated that the nature of crimes in these areas were predominantly thefts from the person. He clarified that there were many reasons why certain areas were more susceptible to crime - such as pavement access for ebikes, schools in the area and travellers into and out of the area. The Detective Superintendent highlighted that commuter campaigns would raise awareness of the possibility of thefts. The Borough Commander added that they were reviewing crime hotspots in the area and considering street lighting, street furniture and more to deter crime. The Chair enquired further as to the solid measures that were taking place to ensure that commuters and residents were safe. The Borough Commander responded that work was targeting knife crime using partnerships with the British Transport Police. Further work was also carried out using passive drugs dogs. There had been recent successes at Wood Green and Seven Sisters Tube Stations. The Police also used behavioural detection officers – who watch the movements of potential criminals. Intelligence was also shared with the Transport Hub. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Intelligence Analyst introduced the report which included a summary of figures on youth crime, knife crime, robbery and theft, Anti-Social Behaviour and the Young People at Risk strategy.

The Non-Voting Co-optee commented that although ‘Clear, Hold, Build’ as a police tactic for removing crime from key areas - had seen some positive results in Finsbury Park; after a year, there had been a significant increase in youth violence and knife crime in the area too. He enquired as to the factors that contributed to this. He also further enquired as to the ability of the council’s Anti-Social Behaviour department to respond to issues, as there had been a lack of resources following a restructure. He wanted assurance that resourcing was correct for Anti-Social Behaviour issues. The Cabinet Member for Communities admitted that there had been staffing changes however the quality of work would not be affected. The Assistant Director for Resident Services then stated that staff had been added to the team and senior officers would now have specialisms of noise and Anti-Social Behaviour as well as an overall Head of Service. With regards to the figures of youth and knife crime, the Detective Superintendent, stated that this may be due to an increase in detection rates rather than an increase in crime rates.

Cllr Dunstall then enquired whether ‘Clear Hold Build’ was pushing crime into other areas. The Borough Commander responded that in the case of Northumberland Park, the ‘Clear, Hold, Build’ area had been extended to areas of high harm crime in Enfield to deal with a pattern of displacement. Since then, there had been no other trends to suggest otherwise. She suggested that in some categories such as sex work - a displacement maybe seen in that other locations may be used, however without reporting it was impossible to tell whether this was happening or not. However, she stated that in the case of organised criminality, Clear Hold Build was seeing significant reductions in violent crime in the borough and in Enfield. As specific ‘crime generators’ were being dealt with longer term, there was reduced incidents of violent crime in all areas.  The Cabinet Member for Communities added Clear Hold Build looked at crime holistically and was not pinpointed to certain areas. 

Cllr Dunstall, enquired further as to the work the Police did with street-based sex work as other factors were also involved such as exploitation, trafficking, and substance misuse. He stated that evidence from third sector sources had shown that there was a shift in how sex workers viewed the Police– and this had pushed sex work indoors and has been detrimental to some of the relationships the third sector had built. The Borough Commander stated that there was a sliding scale with help that could be offered women to exit sex work and the Police enforcement of what was essentially illegal activity. In previous operations, residents were not noticing any change in levels of street prostitution in the areas in which they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

After extensive discussion around some of the points raised at the meeting, the following recommendations were agreed to be finalised.

Recommendation 1: The Panel recommended closer working, and more frequent communication between the Youth Panel representatives and Community Safety Partnership. The Cabinet Member for Communities and Borough Commander should work together to build these into future workplans and policies. A first step would be to organise a visit between the Cabinet Member for Communities and the Youth Council.

Recommendation 2:The Panel asks the Cabinet Member for Communities to help standardise and formalise Ward Panel meetings as a main tool of communication between Police, Council and residents.

Recommendation 3: The Panel asked whether funds could be allocated to provide training and to help facilitate community leaders to structure meetings, find venues and help promote these newly standardised Ward Panel meetings.

Recommendation 4:The Panel asked that the Borough Commander be asked to organise Quarterly Ward performance figures on Safer Neighbourhood Teams’ (SNT) visibility and front-line police resourcing to be cascaded to the newly standardised Ward Panel Meetings. This is so that residents understand how many ‘fit for duty’ police officers were available.

Recommendation 5: The Panel asked that the Borough Commander be asked to provide quarterly ward-by-ward Anti Social Behaviour reporting to feed into the newly standardised Ward Panel meetings.

Recommendation 6: The Scrutiny Panel recommended that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, feeds into the upcoming review of the Anti Social Behaviour Policy along with all other relevant council departments. In addition, and as a matter of urgency, a guidance note for councillors and residents outlining the definition of Anti Social Behaviour and a flow chart of structure for reporting ASB be made available (which includes all council departments that deal with ASB).

Recommendation 7:Another recommendation is to make the online ASB link on the council website more prominent and user friendly – perhaps basing design on user feedback.

Recommendation 8:The Panel asked that the Borough Commander be asked about the proportion of successful outcomes in Haringey for Stop and Search and further information on procedures and policy.

Recommendation 9:  In light of the short-term nature of youth justice projects the Panel recommends that expertise within the voluntary sector be sought by Cabinet Members to ensure that officers have the research, evidence and organisational support to successfully apply for longer term funding opportunities if they exist. 

The Chair also mentioned when next year Community Safety was considered, voluntary organisations should be invited. ACTION  (Scrutiny Officer)

It was decided that the Stop and Search Community Monitoring Groups and MOPAC’s Disproportionality Group be invited to talk about Stop and Search in further depth at a later session. ACTION (Scrutiny Officer)

To consider any items admitted at item 3 above.

The draft scope for an in-depth scrutiny review on cycling in the borough and its position in the road user hierarchy in Haringey was circulated and discussed.  The Chair requested any amends or comment from the Panel.

 The Panel mentioned that:

·         Cllr Dunstall was left off the list of the scrutiny panel. ACTION (Scrutiny Officer)

·         There was a suggestion for the Panel to ride around the Borough to assess new cycling infrastructures and to do a comparison with other boroughs.  Fridays were cited as the best time to arrange this during the day. ACTION (Scrutiny Officer)