Agenda item

To consider appropriate conclusions and recommendations for the review.  An issues paper, outlining the key evidence received by the Panel to date, is attached to assist Members in this process.

The Panel was of the view that the Haringey Strategic Partnership, in making decisions on how funding within the areas based LAA grant is divided up between different blocks, should not look merely at the historical position in relation to funding and seek to replicate this within the new structure. It felt that a strategic approach should instead be adopted and that this should be based upon the key priorities identified within Haringey’s Community Strategy.  The introduction of the new funding regime, as well as a strategic approach, could help to facilitate longer term planning and hence a greater level of sustainability. 

It was noted that redundancy costs could not be funded from grants monies. The impact of the funding changes depended on what Haringey was allocated by central government.  If the settlement was better then expected, the likelihood of redundancies would be diminished.  Community safety had been extremely successful in brining in external grant funding for community safety purposes in recent years but, to some extent had become a victim of this.  The tacit assumption had been made that there was no need to put internal resources into the service as external grants could provide necessary funding.

The Panel expressed concern that relevant services might cease when grants expire and felt that all alternative sources of funding should be fully investigated.  The services provided were of high value to the local community.

It was noted that Camden had two Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and that these had provided an opportunity to bring in additional resources.  BIDs were locally controlled partnerships for improving the environment and economic performance of a defined area. They were created by groups of businesses to oversee and fund environmental improvements and the provision of a limited number of additional or enhanced local services.  Consideration had been previously been given to setting a BID up for Wood Green but not pursued.  The Panel were of the view that this issue should now be revisited by the Haringey Strategic Partnership.

The Panel noted that the 7 Safer and Stronger Communities targets within the LAA were likely to focus on children, young people, volume crime, drugs, alcohol, terrorism, anti social behaviour and traffic accidents.  These would be equally rated in terms of their priority level.

The Panel noted that licensing and planning issues could impact considerably on the character of a specific area and felt that it was important that crime and disorder issues were given full consideration when relevant decisions were taken.  They noted that the Police Service in Camden had taken a particularly assertive and proactive role when the Council were dealing with such issues. 

The Panel felt that there was a need for crime and disorder to be given wider consideration across the Council so that it is considered explicitly when significant decisions were taken.  It should be a major consideration in relation to a range of issues, particularly planning and licensing.  The Panel was therefore of the view that there should be a specific comment in all committee reports on the potential impact on crime and disorder of proposals. This would help to ensure that the issue was taken into account in all of the Council’s policies, strategies, plans and budgets, as required by Section 17.  It was however mindful that this had the potential to become merely a “tick box” exercise but were nevertheless of the view that it would assist by focussing the attention of officers on the issue. 

The Panel noted that the London Borough of Brent had also included the issue in learning and development plans for staff, including appraisals. It felt that it would be appropriate to adopt a similar approach in Haringey as a way of ensuring that staff at senior levels were fully aware of the Council’s responsibilities in this area and are considering the issue as part of their day-to-day work.  It was therefore of the view that reference to crime and disorder should be made in appraisals for all senior posts within the Council.

The Panel noted that the new Community Safety strategy was currently being considered by the Safer Communities Partnership.  It was of the view that there needed to be more joined up working between partners in order to assist in the achievement of targets.  Discussion of the new strategy could provide a valuable opportunity to discuss how partners could work more effectively together and mainstreaming (section 17) responsibilities. There was a particular need for the Mental Health Trust to be more fully engaged.

Alcohol was an issue where there was particular scope for joint working.  There were considerable health implications as well as crime and disorder.  It was noted that the Police had taken an assertive approach in dealing with licensees that were offering cut price offers which could lead to problems with disorder.  The Police had threatened to charge licensees with the additional policing costs that these promotions could lead to.  The Panel commended the Police for this approach. 

The Panel felt that there needed to be a clear vision of what an areas character should be.  In addition, there needed to be more work undertaken with partners outside the traditional loop, such as the Street Pastors.

The Panel noted that the there had been improvement in behaviour around schools since safer Neighbourhood teams had taken a role in preventing disorder at the end of the school day.  However, they felt that schools also had an important role to play. 

It was noted that “On Track” funding for work with 8 to 13 year old children currently went to the Children’s and Young Peoples Service.  Concern was expressed that this money could instead be used to compensate for shortfalls in other service areas and the preventative work with children and young people that it currently covered might be lost.  This works was very valuable.  Haringey had a high number of young people between 16 and 18 who were not in education, employment or training (NEET). The proportion was the second highest in London. In addition, there were challenges arising from the influxof children and young people from newer communities into the Borough.  The Panel were therefore of the view that that money from used by the Children’s and Young People’s Service for crime prevention work continues to be used specifically for these purposes.

AGREED:

1.      That issues referred to above be incorporated into the final report of the Panel as their conclusions and recommendations.

2.      That, when available, a draft copy of the final report be circulated to all Members of the Panel for comment and, subject to there being concurrence by all Members with its contents, submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for approval.