Agenda item

CABINET MEMBER QUESTIONS - CABINET MEMBER FOR COMMUNITIES

An opportunity for the Committee to question the Cabinet Member, Councillor Bernice Vanier, on the Communities portfolio.

 

Minutes:

The Committee received a brief overview of the Cabinet Member Portfolio for Communities and noted that the key priorities were: reducing crime in the

Borough, reducing repeat offending, increasing public confidence & satisfaction with community services and preparation for the Olympics. This involved continuing with the cross border co -operation with Enfield Council to tackle crime, reflecting changes in delivery of services following public consultation exercises, taking forward the successful strategy on dealing with drugs and alcohol abuse, holding the Police to their commitment of 3 hours of visible policing a day and working with them on their new cluster arrangements for policing in the borough.

 

In response to questions and clarifications sought by the Committee the following was noted:

 

  • In the coming days Members would notice an increase of 150 Police officers in Enfield, Haringey and Hackney that would be working closely to apprehend the perpetrators involved in the recent shooting of a young Turkish man at Turnpike Lane station. The increased number of Police officers would also aid the feeling of security in the Green Lanes area, as there were concerns from the local community about reprisal incidents. The Cabinet Member for Communities would ensure that local ward Councillors and local secondary schools were aware of the increased Police presence.

 

  • The Kirkin report on the disturbances in Tottenham would be published in the coming days and it was anticipated that questions on the decision making processes and strategies, used to deal with the disturbances, would be answered in this report.

 

  • Officers were in the process of analysing the results of the first two rounds of Area Forum meetings. This would include assessing the   key topics that attracted people to the meetings. Early comments were that participants liked the workshop style sessions run at the September meetings to discuss the disturbances in Tottenham. Committee members had differing expectations about the numbers of people that should be attending the Area Forum meetings. Some members felt that a smaller number of people attending the meetings was not a negative response from the community. Often the people attending were representative of resident or community groups and would provide a collective view to the meeting and also give feedback from the meeting to their respective groups. Whilst other members felt that there was a need to draw a wider pool of local people to the meetings to discuss local issues.  

 

  • The Cabinet Member acknowledged that the new Localism Bill could have an impact on how the Area Forums planned to engage and work with people in the local communities .The Forums were work in progress and would strive to engage a wider range of participants at meetings.

 

  • The Chair highlighted some discrepancies in the Cabinet Performance report for the Community Safety Manger to be aware of: the performance baseline data for anti social behaviour, LSI 1, serious acquisitive crime reported in Appendix 2 which showed that there were 19.1 cases per 1000 residents. These areas in the report would be examined and rectified if required.

 

  • The Vice Chair communicated the change of venue for the launch of the citizen’s response to the Tottenham disturbances. This was not Bruce Grove Youth Centre but  Tottenham Town Hall .

 

RESOLVED that the following actions be delegated to the appropriate directorate/ officers:

 

  • The Police were currently consulting with the community about the priorities for the Safer Neighbourhood Teams.  In this process it had been communicated that Burglary did not fit the criteria for selection as an SNT priority. There was concern about this approach as burglary was regularly highlighted by residents as a key concern.  The Cabinet Member agreed to check the communication regarding the choice of local SNT priorities with the Police and respond on this to members of the Committee after the meeting. (Action 92.1) Cllr Engert

 

  • It was agreed that data on acquisitive crime (this is crime affecting personal and home property) be provided to members of the Committee   on a ward by ward basis. (Action92.2) Cllr Engert

 

  • Information was sought on the plans for lighting renewal in the borough and whether there were external funding sources available as improved street lighting could help deter crime.  (Action 92.3) Cllr Engert

 

  • The Cabinet Member for Communities agreed to take back comments to the Borough Commander on the particular good work and engagement with young people achieved by a Sergeant Hannah who had recently been moved from his post in the community to the central Police station at Tottenham.  Although it was accepted that there would   be movement of Police officers around different posts, this sergeant had, over the last five years, been particularly effective in the local area and built up vital trust with youngsters in his area. There was a strong feeling that his work in the ward should continue. (Action 92.4) Yvonne Denny

 

  • Clarification was sought on the responsibility for security around the Blake Road and Alexandra Road allotments following a recent spate of break-ins. There was also information sought on what could be done to secure the area around these allotments. The Cabinet Member for Communities agreed to report back in this issue. (Action 92.5) Cllr Alexander

 

  • The Chair spoke about the difficulty of ward Councillors accessing Neighbourhood Watch meetings and therefore participating in them. This was due to the level of security around data concerning the meetings. The Head of Community Safety agreed to raise this issue at the next meeting with the Police Co-ordinator for Neighbourhood Watch.(Action 92.6) Chair

 

 

  • The Cabinet Member for Communities agreed to respond back on the reductions in funding for signage (Action 92.7) Cllr Newton

 

  • Information was sought on the number of Stop and Search’s, completed by Police officers, which resulted in an outcome i.e. (prosecution, warning, and sentence). It was noted that there were statistics available on the profile of people that were stopped and searched and this information would be used to commission engagement work with young people most likely to be stopped and searched.  Currently outcomes were not included in the data  pool and  the Committee requested that this information was included in future to provide  members with confidence that  Stop and Search’s  were being carried out with good reason.(Action 92.8) Cllr Newton

 

  • It was further reported that residents were being asked to help compile the top three priorities for their local SNT’s based on perception and not data. The rationale behind this approach was speculated by officers to be connected to the recent British Crime Survey results which showed that only 30%of crime was recorded.  Therefore the presumption was that local police teams were trying to capture what was happening locally that was of concern to people.  Overall it was felt prudent to shorten the gap between what is recorded as a crime and what the community feel and see as a crime.  The Cabinet Member for Communities agreed to obtain guidance about how the both data and perception can be used to compile SNT priorities. (Action 92.9)Helena Kania

 

  • The Cabinet Member for Communities had reported, in her presentation, that there would be an additional 50 Police Officers  allocated to the borough and it was agreed that she would seek further  clarification on their reporting lines.(Action 92.10) Cllr Diakides