Agenda item

ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE FORUM

Minutes:

Area Forum item 1 - Feedback on actions from the last forum

 

Replies from Cabinet Members

Action 1 – that a letter be sent to the Chief Executive / Assistant Chief Executive, stating that it was discourteous not to agree to a meeting with Members of this committee to work out a way of improving timescales and quality of responses to actions raised during the Area Forums.

ACTION: Chair

 

Jamaica Village

Action 2 - Further information was requested with regards to the estimated costs to the Local Authority on setting up and advertising events.  Councillor Reece agreed to follow this up.

ACTION: Councillor Reece

 

CPZ / signage in Stroud Green

Action 3 - Further clarification was requested with regards to the boundaries between the Stroud Green and Finsbury Park CPZs, and discrepancies between the signage on the street and on pay and display meters.

 

Finsbury Park event signage

Action 4: Following from the feedback at the meeting on 18 June 2012, further information was requested as to the progress of the email circulation list, the publicising of events in Finsbury Park and effects on parking in the local area; and whether these new measures had been successful

 

ACTION: Traffic Management Services – note, an officer will be in attendance at the next meeting to address these issues.

 

Pay and Display review

Action 5 -  that the Chair contact the Cabinet Member for Environment to ensure that the results of the Pay and Display review were clearly displayed on the Haringey website – including on the Area Forum and Ward webpages.

ACTION: Chair

 

Hornsey Town Hall

Action 6 – a clear response was required on the Heads of Lease – process / clarification – and information on public engagement.  The Chair would write to the Cabinet Member for Finance and Carbon Reduction for a response.

ACTION: Chair

 

Area Forum item 2 - Parish Pump – Finsbury Park track consultation

 

Action 7 - Concerns were raised with regards to the length of the consultation in that it did not allow sufficient time for people to respond.  Councillor Canver undertook to investigate whether it would be possible to extend the consultation period.

ACTION: Cabinet Member for Environment

 

Post meeting note: Response from Paul Ely, Head of Commissioning - Having investigated this, I have taken the view that the consultation should not be extended.  This is because:

As the issue has now been raised it can be taken into account in the further planning and development of the project and extending the consultation period will not have any impact on this.  Of approximately 300 responses received to date, this is the only that has raised this issue.

 

Area Forum item 3 - Changes to waste collections

 

NOTED the issues raised by residents as summarised below:

·        The food waste bin was not big enough for some large households

·        Recycling bins not emptied, despite being delivered two weeks ago

·        Clarification was needed on what residents should do with the existing small green boxes

·        Some gardens were not large enough to house the bins, and have been put on pavements outside properties – which could be a danger to pedestrians

·        One resident was told that the small green boxes could not be used for any overspill, and plastic bags should be used instead

·        Residents were told that Veolia would carry out surveys before the bins were delivered – one block of flats now had 12 bins for 4 flats

·        Residents needed to be aware of the options available to them – for example, what size bins were available

·        More consultation should have taken place with residents

·        The amount of bins on residential streets made the streets look ugly

·        Bins were not always returned to the correct garden once collections had taken place

 

Michael McNicholas - Client & Performance Manager, Contract Management Section – provided the following responses:

·        All specific problems must be reported directly to Veolia – 020 8885 7700

·        There was a phased rollout to over 42,000 households, which meant that some households would have received their bins far in advance of the planned collection date.  Veolia would be contacted to ensure that each collection route had enough capacity to deal with the extra waste on the first collection

·        Where bins were stored on the pavements, residents would be consulted to identify suitable solutions for individual needs

·        Where bins were not being returned to properties, residents should contact Veolia

·        The green boxes would no longer be used, as Health and Safety issues had been raised by the Health and Safety Executive during visits over the past couple of years over operatives lifting heavy loads

·        Residents could dispose of the green box at recycling centres.  A letter would be sent to all households following the roll-out stating when green boxes would be collected from front gardens

 

Action 8 – That information is provided on the following:

·        A list of what options are available to residents

·        The assessment process for deciding which bins were delivered to properties

·        Removal of green boxes

·        What communication has taken place with residents since the start of the process

ACTION: Single Frontline Services / Waste Management

 

Area Forum item 5 – Planning and the Localism Act

 

Action 9 – That an update is presented at a future forum when the process has been developed further.

ACTION: Chair / Clerk

 

Area Forum item 6 – Area Plan

 

NOTED the issues raised by residents and Members as summarised below:

·        It was disappointing not to have many environmental targets – all homes should aim to be energy efficient

·        Specific information with regards to what action would be taken in Parkland Walk.

·        It would be useful to have a contact name for a conservation officer.

·        Public transport – officers needed to provide an assurance that there would be engagement between the local authority and transport officers/providers, so that there was a greater opportunity for input into public transport.

·        There were concerns over the ‘deliverability’ of the plan and whether it would match residents’ expectations.

 

Joan Hancox – Head of Neighbourhood Services – responded that:

·        The Area Plan was for local area priorities – some issues raised by residents were too general and related more towards council policy.

·        She did not have specific information with regards to Parkland Walk, but would contact the resident with this following the meeting.

 

RESOLVED that the plan would not be signed off until the Chair was able to work with officers to look at the issues raised.

ACTION: Chair

 

Area Forum item 8 – Park Road Swimming Pool

 

NOTED the issues raised by residents and Members as summarised below:

·        The lack of consultation with residents was disappointing, especially as the preferred contractor had been decided upon and the decision was to be endorsed by Cabinet at the September meeting.

·        There was a lack of information available to the public in general and concerns were raised about this as it was unknown if changes would be made that could affect certain user groups i.e. concessions

 

Action 10 – That the Cabinet Member for Communities be invited to the next meeting to provide information on which safeguards were in place to protect services for residents and what the ground rules were for the tender exercise.  ACTION: Chair / Clerk

Supporting documents: